We spoke with a product manager at Meta to learn how the company plans to bring interoperability to Threads in the coming months. It faces both technical and cultural challenges.

Meta is treading carefully, doing a phased implementation while continuing conversations with Fediverse leaders. This will give the company more time to iron out some of the integration kinks. “Do we adapt the protocol to be able to support this?” Lambert asks. “Or do we try to do some kind of interesting, unique implementation?” For example, Threads supports audio posts, a feature not currently supported within ActivityPub, so Meta is experimenting with “federating” a text transcription of the original post instead of the audio version.

It was never a good idea federating with Threads

  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    42·
    9 months ago

    For as long as this article is, it is remarkably free of journalism. It is basically a press release from Meta saying that they’re planning to implement Threads in a few months, and don’t feel like saying more about it than that.

    “Do we adapt the protocol to be able to support this?” Lambert asks. “Or do we try to do some kind of interesting, unique implementation?”

    This is a fascinating question, both in its lack of an answer, and in the inherent framing of the question that of course they’re going to introduce incompatibilities, and the discussion is simply about how to do it.

    Mastodon allows some artistic nudity

    …

    Additionally, specifics are still murky regarding exactly how user data will be handled after the connections between networks are established. For example, if you federate a post from Threads and decide to delete it afterwards, what happens to the cached post on the servers of the other networks?

    That… is not the central question that’s on people minds about how user data will be handled. Presumably you were in a position to ask Rachel Lambert, the product manager at Meta who started the company’s journey towards interoperability, a more obvious and salient question, and include in your article her response.

    Meta is treading carefully, doing a phased implementation while continuing conversations with Fediverse leaders.

    Who are these leaders and what are they saying about this? This, also, seems like it would have been pertinent information to include. If Meta’s answer was “You’re not allowed to know that at present,” then including that response seems like it would have made the article quite a bit more informative than simply pretending it didn’t occur to you to ask for any details about this.

    • ZaktorEnglish
      17·
      9 months ago

      Mastodon allows some artistic nudity

      This is akin to saying “the Internet allows some artistic nudity”. Like, what do they think Mastodon is? Who is allowing it? “Mastodon” also allows hardcore porn. Or it doesn’t. Or moderation is spotty. Or it’s collapsed behind a warning.

      Journalists, do like the barest minimum of research before simply relaying statements from company spokespeople.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        101·
        9 months ago

        Yeah, the whole article is like that. Not only is the writer apparently clueless enough to get basic facts about Mastodon wrong, but each one is wrong with a flavor of a Facebook-favoring way (like implying in several different subtle ways that Mastodon includes some sort of harmful behavior or some limitation, and we need to carefully monitor to make sure it doesn’t negatively impact any Facebook users, and that’s the issue). And, there’s absolutely no curiosity or follow-up question even after statements that are clearly inviting them.

        • nicetriangle@kbin.social
          7·
          9 months ago

          Funny thing is that the mainstream threads audience would probably do more harm to the mastodon ecosystem by orders of magnitude.

          There is a big cultural disconnect. I’m active in both and they are very different communities by and large.

          • Dame @lemmy.mlEnglish
            1·
            9 months ago

            This is an odd take and not even close. It is in fact the Fediverse that would be more harmful. Meta has laws and government scrutiny. There’s a lot of willing filth on the Fediverse. Blocking instances more so became a think the last 1-2 years. Blocking those instances does not mean they don’t exist. Can you find harmful content on Meta’s platform? Sure but that’s mostly due to volume. Where as there’s Fediverse instances straight up for illegal and gross content

  • hightrix@lemmy.worldEnglish
    281·
    9 months ago

    Are these audio only posts? That sounds like a terrible direction for the fediverse to go. We already have enough videos of people staring at their phone while talking.

    Did everyone forget how to read?

    Yes, I read the bit about transcription.

      • hightrix@lemmy.worldEnglish
        9·
        9 months ago

        Oh no, I totally agree.

        My comment is more on the trend of where general social media seems to be heading.

        That said, as long as we can continue to ignore… great!

  • Kierunkowy74@kbin.social
    26·
    9 months ago

    For example, Threads supports audio posts, a feature not currently supported within ActivityPub(…)

    Laughs in Funkwhale, Castopod, and even any ActivityPub platform implementing an Audio object type

    Wired checked no Meta claim against reality.

  • Blaze@discuss.onlineEnglish
    263·
    9 months ago

    For example, Threads supports audio posts, a feature not currently supported within ActivityPub, so Meta is experimenting with “federating” a text transcription of the original post instead of the audio version.

    Here we go

      • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
        116·
        9 months ago

        they modified AP already? wow that was quick. i was under this crazy impression they were using text in a field designed for text. silly me!

        • ZeroHora@lemmy.mlEnglish
          14·
          9 months ago

          No the next step is saying that text transcription didn’t worked like they wanted so we need to change the AP to allow what the majority wants(spoiler: they are the majority)

            • ZeroHora@lemmy.mlEnglish
              3·
              9 months ago

              I’m just joking, I don’t think they can make a change unilaterally easily.

                • Diabolo96@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                  81·
                  9 months ago

                  It’s far worse. They’re making improvements only on their side. The protocol everyone uses will lack the features their protocol offers. In other words, their side of the garden is now greener than ours, and one day, their side will be so majestic and beautiful compared to ours that almost nobody will want to visit it anymore, and like a flame without fuel, the Fediverse will Extinguish on its own.

              • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
                12·
                9 months ago

                right this is the ‘feature envy’ argument

                ha a blog post, ok. even the blog post admits it

                While XMPP still exist and is a very active community

                every instance of xmpp folded to google because it “got most of user base to migrate”

                if the fediverse cant actually compete content and feature wise across 10s of thousands of very different services/experiences built on AP, (unlike XMPP), we deserve to die.

                the world is a different place than it was . how many people do you know use gtalk? zero? its zero. xmpp? STILL A THING YOU CAN USE. google didnt kill shit. the market at the time seriously minimized its use, cuz everyone was lazy and not running their own server-server products.

                back today.

                do you have any evidence of Meta modifying the AP protocol? can you point at their actual ability to modify the protocol? can you tell me how an instance that drops all nonstandard AP traffic is going to suffer from Meta attempting it?

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      4·
      9 months ago

      The article’s paywalled, but presumably they’re talking to active developers and people who run large instances.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        8·
        9 months ago

        I think it’s doubtful that they actually are. If they were actually reaching out to any Mastodon “leaders,” I think the leaders would be saying something about it and posting the communications.

  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    146·
    9 months ago

    i guess ill say it again. meta hasnt modified the protocol, and the bells and whistles they feed their own users on their own instance means nothing to the rest of the 'verse. calm the fuck down

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      9·
      9 months ago

      calm the fuck down

      What, and miss out on the delicious dopamine that comes from being part of a mob gripped by righteous anger? This is a chance to be mad at the same thing that everyone else is mad at, risk-free.

        • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
          3·
          9 months ago

          Who is fearful? I glanced over this thread and I didn’t see a lot of fear; it’s mostly just people observing the dishonesty.

          Maybe there is or isn’t a reason to worry about Facebook coming into the community, but discussing it (at least as I’ve seen in this thread) doesn’t mean either anger or fear. It’s just discussing. It’s a good thing to do.

          • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
            23·
            9 months ago

            if you have something to add, add it. if youre going to go throw more moral arguments against billion dollar companies maybe go bark up a more sympathetic tree. im looking for technical information, not moral indignation.

  • yo_scottie_oh@lemmy.mlEnglish
    8·
    9 months ago

    How is audio different from other media types (e.g. images, videos, etc) that it isn’t / couldn’t be supported by activity pub?

    • Chris@feddit.ukEnglish
      8·
      9 months ago

      I don’t know. Mastodon already supports audio posts, how does that federate? Why can’t Threads do the same thing?

    • spaduf@slrpnk.netEnglish
      4·
      9 months ago

      Pretty sure it’s not. Wired is just talking about the wrong thing. Currently threads voice posts federate fine.

  • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.comEnglish
    81·
    9 months ago

    I keep seeing people hating on the EEE crowd. Finally meta makes a move that proves we were right.

  • ALostInquirer@lemm.eeEnglish
    6·
    9 months ago

    Another big, lingering question is why Meta wants to do this in the first place. Lambert says Meta wants to give users more control over their posts and followers, with easier avenues to engage across platforms.

    So will they be implementing a method to export this data in ways that could be imported to other platforms? Otherwise I don’t see where federation fits in here all that much.

    Extending reach isn’t really the same as control imo.

  • Adanisi@lemmy.zipEnglish
    3·
    9 months ago

    “Meta will play nice” the shills said.

    “They won’t EEE you’re being paranoid”, they said.

    “They’ll follow the standard”, they said.

  • QuazarOmega@lemy.lolEnglish
    2·
    9 months ago

    Besides the obvious repulsion for anything Meta, that’s a novel thing to see, I’m kinda curious to see what happens with the user reception of these audio posts

      • QuazarOmega@lemy.lolEnglish
        1·
        9 months ago

        Yep, think the same, too many voice messages are a pain, though adding a transcription sounds like a good deal, which also makes discoverability possible

  • PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    2·
    9 months ago

    Sorry for the n00b question, but how does a more “redditesque” Lemmy work with a more “twitteresque” service, and vice versa?