@darnell For what it's worth: here is my argument with respect to including Threads in Fediverse numbers: we should only include the number of Threads users who have turned on ActivityPub integration (seems to be something like 50k, https://fediversereport.com/why-is-meta-adding-fediverse-interoperability-to-threads/ , which is incidentally about the same number of Fediverse users who have bridge dtheir accounts to atproto/atmopshere/bluesky via bridgy). Because: let's think about Google accounts. Some of them have direct access to "the SMTP network" via gmail. We should count those as email users. But there are also lots of Google accounts that do *not* have associated gmail address. Those have no connection to "the SMTP network", and we should not count them as "email users", at least not as "google email users". Same thing with Threads users and ActivityPub.
It's a browser extension that collects those self-verification tags as you browse, so it builds up a nice little list of accounts you may want to follow on the Fediverse as you browse. It's also privacy-preserving, because nothing leaves your browser
@cwebber@irelephant that's probably true for production-quality relays but for little ones I can verify that they're pretty simple - I'm running one in my living room
@electricmood none. I want to see the fediverse be a place that is open to more people, and this is the simplest way I can think of to help that happen
Research professor in the Kahlert School of Computing at the University of Utah. Co-director of the Flux Research Group: https://www.flux.utah.edu. I build research infrastructure: https://cloudlab.us, https://powderwireless.net, https://emulab.net, https://geni.net.I do not speak for my employerProfile pic: blue and white stylized picture of a middle aged, bearded white man looking up and to the left Banner pic: Various glowing lights in a datacenter