What if Meta's hidden objective behind the Threads-to-Mastodon initiative is a play on app.net? And, what if threads.net is a measured step towards what could be the greatest pivot in all of tech?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

You're right, we should all stop talking about and discussing problems and risks. And silently stare at each other tille someone else comes up with a solution.

Step 1 in fixing a problem is to recognize and get awareness for it.

Step 2 is garnering interest from the people who are qualified to actually make realistic proposals

Step 3 is collaborating on ideas to figure out what will or won't be effective, and to create new ideas by returning to step 2.

Step 4 is to circle back to step 1, but for actions and implementations. Repeat ad nauseum.

**We're Still in Step 1. ** Complaining that we aren't getting to the next step quick enough without providing assistance to get there is incredibly meta to this process 🤔

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I think what they're saying is that we're beating step 1 to death. Do that enough and people start ignoring the articles. If all the articles are saying the same thing, it's not adding much to the discussion.

This article WAS a bit different though. It's suggesting how the plan isn't limited to microblogging or Mastodon but the fediverse as a whole, and what the process could look like

[–] Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 10 months ago

I think I see the problem. Theirs no path to step 4 in your workflow.

[–] aldalire@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

Yeah, what this guy said 👍