• OneCardboardBox@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Fair, but surely the solution is a “wait and see” approach vs just blocking it completely? Maybe Threads overloads the server for… an hour? A day? Then someone turns it off.

    Plus, if there’s a lot of data exchanged, doesn’t that just mean that a lot of SDF users want what’s on Threads, or that users on Threads care about what happens here? Either way, seems like the right move is to keep the channel open if possible.

    • ThorrJo@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      surely the solution is a “wait and see” approach

      No. I don’t want anything to do with anything Mark Zuckerberg touches, and I don’t want to have to wade thru an ocean of drivel from the type of users his services attract in order to socialize online.

      • OneCardboardBox@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, but you’re arguing for completely different reasons than I’m taking about. They raised a technical concern and that’s what I addressed.

      • OneCardboardBox@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think the performance impacts on other instances will depend on how Meta engineers integrate Federation. I’m sure it will involve some “Federation Gateway” service on their infra, whose job it is to cache content from and make requests to the Fediverse at large.