I agree. Everyone should be able to decide for themselves. My only concern is that Fediverse servers will suddenly become expensive to host because of the Threads traffic. But this would also happen with many users on many smaller instances and is not specific to Threads.

[–] breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Servers pull content based on subscriptions (follows). Meta can't push content into the Fediverse.

[–] 0x1C3B00DA@kbin.social 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No ActivityPub is explicitly push-based. If you follow someone on a remote server, the remote server pushes their posts to your server. Meta can push content into the fediverse, but like any other user/server they can be blocked if its spammy

[–] breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago

I think we're talking about two different things. I'm saying that servers ultimately choose what they receive. People worry that Meta will flood Mastodon with unwanted content but content has to be invited in. Although it's more accurate to say that users have to be invited in, like vampires, to serve content. People seem worried that federating means inviting in all the vampires.

When users on server A follow a single user on server B, it doesn't matter if server B has one user or ten billion, server A receives content from one user. The only way to receive all content from a server is to have at least one person following every user on the remote server.

So Meta can't flood Mastodon with unwanted content because you only receive content from users you explicitly ask to receive it from. You aren't connected to the firehose when you federate with their instance.

[–] brenno@lemmy.brennoflavio.com.br 1 points 7 months ago

I think the point is too many users following threads users as is it more likely to find a friend there than on Fediverse for example. Which will require more compute resources and storage