Here in Brazil it’s much simpler because when you rent a place, basic services like electricity and water are transferred to you. So you get the bills, not your landlord.
And services like internet, you hire your own instead of using the ISP hired by your landlord.
I’ve never heard of Pokémon Leggenos.
As someone not from the US, the idea of non-walkable cities is so alien to me.
Before learning to speak English and reading about the US, I wouldn’t even imagine it’s a thing.
Exactly. If you can’t afford an expensive lawyer, the US wants you to lose.
Actually, it’s not only that they want you to lose. It wants the entire system to be so expensive that you can’t even afford to go to court and lose. You have to settle, and don’t have a lot of power determining the terms.
Reason number one: it’s a publicly traded American company.
It does, yes.
And since lots of people in the Fediverse support blocking popular competitors, like people in Mastodon talking about blocking/unfederating Threads, I'd say we're making sure the Fediverse stays in obscurity forever. Never having a chance to become popular, never having a chance to convince people to leave proprietary platforms.
People have been repeating these fearmongering ideas, but with nothing concrete.
How is Threads going to destroy the fediverse if we make it easier for people to choose to come to Mastodon?
And how do you think that pushing people towards Threads is going to save the Fediverse?
And, like I said, if the entire protocol that the fediverse runs on is independent of Mastodon, how can Mastodon even stop it?
Not totally sure, but I don’t think that negotiating with Threads on anything at any point is a winning strategy. They’ll win every time. Kind of a ‘give them an inch they take a mile’ situation in my head.
Federating with them isn't "negotiating" in any way.
Any fear of Threads controlling the protocol is out of our hands, because the protocol isn't in the hands of the Mastodon devs, it's in the hands of W3C. So no matter what Mastodon instances do, it won't affect Threads and W3C.
At least by staying separate the user base will have to make a conscious decision about where they want to spend time instead of letting Meta dictate that for them in the future.
I think that by not federating with them, we're TAKING AWAY the option for people to make a decision, and forcing the worst possible choice on them. Imagine I want to follow a guy that is really popular on Threads. If Mastodon federates with them, I can decide to make an account on Mastodon and follow the guy from the safety of a network that it not governed by algorithms that promote hate, or I can decide to make a Threads account and follow them there. It's my choice.
But if Mastodon instances do NOT federate with Threads, the only way for me to follow that popular guy is by creating a Threads account and using the Threads app. By not federating, Mastodon removed my ability to choose and forced the worst possible option on me.
We should want MORE people using Mastodon, not fewer people. Let them follow Threads profiles from the safety of Mastodon.
And how do you think defederating them will affect that at all?
They can just use their influence and say “here, W3C, add this and that to the protocol”.
How will a small mastodon server with a few thousand users stop that? Defederating them is useless.
Mozilla gotta do something.
And based on their actions on recent years, that something is probably going to be: 1) firing more developers, and 2) increasing the compensation of their CEO.