Regardless, I'm predicting that if not for a cultural clash, many instances may de-federate due to the compute cost.

Then those content creators can set up their own (or pay someone else to do so) Fediverse instances. The Fediverse is decentralized on purpose to avoid the kinds of lock-in that FB/IG/etc. require.

I want no part of that, which is why I don't use such centralized services. As such, why should I allow those same centralized services run by greedy scumbags anywhere near my instance(s) or even my consciousness?

Can you provide me with a cogent argument as to why, after making the effort to get away from those toxic ad-riddled environments, I should welcome those same folks into my world? I imagine that could be an interesting discussion.

Now, I personally I think it's trying to swim up the waterfall & ultimately worse for everyone, but: Mastadon specifically has had a strong history of being anti-search, anti-scraping. You aren't supposed to be surveiling folks at industrial scale on the fediverse.

There's widespread skepticism about Meta respecting rules of the road. Having a huge giant shark join the pool of lots of little fish seems like a scary proposition. How we can still protect & have sovereignty over our different fedi-sites is a real question when there's a company with so much technical, economic, and popular leverages.

I'm honestly pretty skeptical about the fediverse aspect of Threads. It suggests that if I open a new fediverse instance and follow their accounts, I can suck in their timeline and do with it whatever I want. In particular, to bypass ads.

Hence, I could make a "best of Threads" fediverse instance without ads. Or maybe put my own ads on it.

Or, I could build my own client on top of the Threads instance.

None of this sounds very Meta to me.

It's the opposite of naive: it's extremely well thought out and heavily deliberated. Making so many things "public" by default is an invite to people. It's an intentional welcome mat in old school "Internet 1.0" sort of way. But just because you want to welcome people doesn't mean you have to welcome robots (crawlers, etc). Many instances do that deliberately in a very old school "Internet 1.0" way by saying so in their ROBOTS.TXT file (in addition to other places).

In the old web, crawlers were expected to read ROBOTS.TXT and no matter how "public" they thought the website was they found, ROBOTS.TXT was supposed to be the final word.

Anyone scraping or making searchable "at will" random chunks of the Fediverse is easily violating some number of ROBOTS.TXT files. That is an ancient technical convention that isn't new or naive. The internet knew even then that bad actors would ignore ROBOTS.TXT files. The old internet learned to name and shame the bad actors, and in some cases would back that up by force with firewall blocks and in some cases lawsuits. Mastodon does that too. That's why a lot of Mastodon instances are preemptively blocking Threads, because they don't trust Meta to follow good behaviors such as checking ROBOTS.TXT, because Meta hasn't shown a history of being a good actor there and because Thread's privacy policies seem to imply that they don't care to be a good actor for their own users (to the point of not supporting EU users at all because GDPR is "too hard"), so it makes it much harder to assume they will be good actors with respect to all of the conventions around Mastodon data including the classic ROBOTS.TXT.

The Mastodon culture of "public for people, but not for ROBOTS, or only select ROBOTS" is an ancient internet tradition. It's hard to call that naive, when it has decades of history and internet social norms (including good outcomes) behind it. What's naive is thinking that because some major corporations stopped respecting good social norms in the name of increased ad revenue that those norms no longer apply and "anything technically possible is allowable". Read the ROBOTS.TXT in the room and stop being motivated by technology for technology's sake without respecting ethics. Be a good actor in any ecosystem.

But it's still wishful thinking. We live in the age where AI is so bold as to scrape the crap out of even the largest of other big tech companies without blinking. Without permission, attribution, compensation. So surely a little Mastodon scrape isn't a problem.

There's no need to talk about how unethical it is, we agree. Problem is that it's hard if not impossible to stop. That what I mean by naive.

I don't think it is is exactly "wishful thinking" to believe that the way we get back to promoting ethics in software is expecting people to behave ethically. We sure are doomed to be disappointed when people turn out to fail us, but that's all the more reason to fight for it, to remind people what ethics are and why a polite society needs them. All of those disappointments are teaching opportunities, if people are open to listening.

(Will Meta learn anything at all from all the Mastodon instances that have pre-emptively blocked them on ethics concerns? Who knows? Mastodon can teach, but it can't force the student to learn. Is it worth Mastodon trying and fighting to teach Meta, no matter what happens? I'd say yes. Ethics are as much a social construct. How we talk about them, how we try to teach them, that says a lot about who we are and what our ethics are.)

I'd rather have even the attempt at ethics than despair that "ethics are technically impossible to enforce". We know ethics can't be programmed, that's why we have to enforce them socially.