If either one of our instances decides to implement proprietary features that Threads creates (the second E in EEE) and the other one doesn't, that could break the experience of us being "here" together.

[–] ampersandrew@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And we're free to move to another instance that has the access, or lack thereof, that we want.

[–] null@slrpnk.net 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yup, thus fragmenting the crap out of the fediverse (the last E)

[–] ampersandrew@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I always saw that as a feature, not a bug. The feature that prevents it from being the last E.

[–] null@slrpnk.net 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If you see massive fragmentation as a feature then I really don't know what to tell you.

I guess enjoy?

[–] ampersandrew@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm a Linux user. That "fragmentation" is probably a good reason for why that hasn't been extinguished either. So as far as I can tell, yes, I'll enjoy the resilience that that implies without fear of it being extinguished.

[–] null@slrpnk.net 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I really don't think that's a meaningful comparison.

Federation relies on unity -- fragmentation ruins that.

[–] ampersandrew@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Well, you can stick to instances that federate with Threads even if/when they misbehave then, but having the option not to is pretty great, from my perspective.

[–] null@slrpnk.net 1 points 11 months ago

Sure, that's great while it's still just "instances that do federate with threads" and "instances that don't federate with threads".