![](/static/ef72c750/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/eb9cfeb5-4eb5-4b1b-a75c-8d9e04c3f856.png)
Aside from the “moral” argument, can someone ELI5 what harm can a federated threads.net do on other users (like me) and/or instances?
Aside from the “moral” argument, can someone ELI5 what harm can a federated threads.net do on other users (like me) and/or instances?
So can banks in the UK. There is one design for England, but a few for Scotland, for example.
I don’t think so, because forcing users to post means shitposting.
I can understand. After the initial excitement, the content is lacuster and scarse compared to reddit (due to lack of large userbase)
Why pics on lemmy.world are so much worse than /r/pics?
Agree, and I think hashtags (or similar) are very important unless you are literally just interested in the current toots only, or you check Mastodon every minute.
I totally get it and I agree, however this phenomenon is also exacerbated by the way they phrase the emails encouraging you to answer such questions. “Can you help xxx?” Of course I can… and if I can’t, I would still try…
Most are twitter mirroring bots, which means it’s OK to follow but there will not be much engagement.
It’s not just that: it is made worse by the fact that, being “free”, resources are limited. For example, Lemmy.world has been experiencing several hiccups and it’s bloody slow at the moment. I get it, it runs on small servers. But the QoS is bad nevertheless; how can you expect the average Joe coming from Reddit to stay here?
I got a number of answers that sound very weak to me, and basically point to a “fail” of the fediverse in its own nature if threads joins. Kind of disappointing.
To me, the key idea of the fediverse is that it’s federated and should work as a whole, no matter who joins. Most of the answers below support the opposite. They are basically saying that the fediverse should stay within the “fediverse”, which is exactly what non-federated social media are doing. Meh.