@panos@calckey.social on the Fediverse & Meta's Threads

Technology@beehaw.org – 66 points – 1 years ago

For those who don't want to click through, this is the content of the post:

There is another reason I find the discussion about blocking #Meta's #ActivityPub project #Threads interesting:

I've been saying for a while now that the #Fediverse is a new and different beast, and whoever tries to understand it simply as a direct social media replacement misses the whole picture. We're also federated communities, just as much.

Today we see a lot of concern about "what will the #Fediverse do" with #Meta. Wanna know what we will do? Everything and nothing. Because the Fediverse is not one entity. This is the essence of its decentralized nature - and that's cool. If your server intends to block Meta servers completely - cool. If not, cool again.

But if you expect a unified response on something like that, you're in for a disappointment.

This is not a "schism", a "problem", something to "solve". This is just decentralization in practice. We don't need to have the same blocklists, and that's ok. Open protocols are not something you can control, so chill. When the time comes for this subject, choose a server with a policy that you agree with. But if you're worried that we won't all have one unified stance... are you sure you actually like #decentralization?

Edit: It looks like the post got copied by Lemmy anyway, but I'll leave it for now just in case it doesn't show up on Mlem or Jerboa (or if it gets deleted)

You are viewing a single comment

View all comments

I find it hard to understand the argument here, mastodon is full of people dramatically distancing themselves from the "fediverse meta drama" but I don't see anyone actually talking about what the issue is. Are people just vaguely afraid of how meta will change the culture of fediverse and don't have anything specific to say or am I missing something?

I think the biggest risk is "Embrace Extend Extinguish".

Kind of like how FB Messenger is based off XMPP.

Facebook puts out their new Twitter clone and embraces the fediverse to get access to our community and content.

Facebook extends the fediverse and adds reaction emojis and videos that only show up on MetaTwitter, not on Mastodon. This draws all the users to MetaTwitter and makes them the defacto instance for federated microblogging.

After a few years as MetaTwitter becomes an institution, they extinguish their open-source competition by blocking federation, and now all the Mastodon users have to make MetaTwitter accounts if they want to keep microblogging with their friends.

This happened with Internet Explorer, XMPP, and it's ongoing right now with Google's Amp email and project Fuschia.

Any attempt to extend GPL code in a non GPL way is an attack on our rights as users.

That, and Meta has the infrastructure/paid developers to develop features/respond to issues much faster, which might cause more casual users to migrate over because they see things they desire.

Another worry I've seen around is that if the Meta instance is not blocked/defederated, it could aggregate all that data and sell it, which is something lots of people explicitly do not want.

My question is. Isn’t all of this true regardless of whether people block them or not? Meta still has a huge audience and they could still do everything you outlined here.

Yeah I think the main risk is Meta using Open-Source's accomplishments, or good will, to help their proprietary software compete with open-source software.

They don't have to make their Twitter clone federated at all, but because they're making it federated, it harms existing fediverse users because they can use the communities to promote proprietary software, and they can use federation to "opensource-wash" their proprietary software. This competition takes away potential users of open-source software and allows Meta to have control over the fediverse.

Concerns about cultural changes from an influx of ten times the users the entire Fediverse currently has from a platform that is known for having a particularly toxic, algorithm-poisoned userbase aren't specious or something you can ignore — even if the fears are "vague" in some sense they're very valid.

I feel a little lame quoting myself, but I was just having this discussion elsewhere so I'm just going to copy/paste my thoughts rather then thinking of a different way to say it this time.

Say you have 10 servers. 7 are Lemmy, 3 are kbin. Great, each admin has control over those servers. Then you have Meta. They'll run 1 huge server. When the 10 other servers enable Federation, Meta now has 10 servers of content that isn't even on their own platform that they can sell. Your data will literally exist on the Meta server because your data is not contained within your instance/platform once it's Federated. Meta can then harvest the entire Fediverse for data like this. It's like an absolute wet dream for them. They don't even have to coax people to use their own platform!

If your instance has defederated from Meta, but is federated with an instance that does federate with Meta, then Meta still has access to all your data through that mutual server. So not only would people have to defederate from Meta, they'd have to defederate with anyone who does federate with Meta. If everyone isn't on board with this, it'll cause a huge fracture to form.

Make no mistake: Meta wants to sell your data. They know all it takes is one server to federate with them and they've unlocked the entire fediverse to be harvested. I would not be shocked to see large amounts of cash flowing in exchange for federation rights.

Meta must be defederated the second they so much as dip a toe into the Fediverse or everything you've ever done, or do, on any ActivityHub platform will be scooped up and sold.

I'll just add that Meta will state that anything on their server is their property, and Federation will put your data directly on their server, even if you're not a member of their platform.

But meta doesn't need a huge instance called meta to steal data from everyone else in the federation, they can just make an anonymous instance with a bot that subscribes to everything available and get it that way too. It's kinda the way the protocol works, this can't be solved by everyone just agreeing to block meta.

Sure, but you can't get investors interested in a bot. You can sell them a platform though. Meta will make the flashiest UI the fediverse has ever seen and sell that to investors, while harvesting and selling everything on the fediverse whether you use their platform or not. The only possible way to keep your data out of Meta's hands is to defederate anyone and everything associated with them. I know it sounds tinfoil hat, but honestly evaluate how Facebook does business and then imagine how ripe ActivityPub is for that sort of exploitation. If I used Facebook I have agreed to allow myself to be data mined, but if I use kbin I have not agreed, and yet, Meta can still do it if even one mutual server has agreed (or been paid) to federate to both platforms.

Ah, I thought you meant more as in selling user data for ML training purposes or advertising.

Meta can still do it if even one mutual server has agreed (been paid) to federate to both platforms.

I dunno, maybe I'm too pessimistic but I don't see a way this ever works out in our favor, there will always be someone who doesn't care and just wants all the content. Just look at people being unable to get off reddit or twitter right now. When faced with a choice between sticking with 10% of the fediverse blocking meta, or 90% federating with them (since meta is probably going to be huge just by merit of being backed by billions of dollars), all their friends and companies and communities being on meta sites, there is no way they will choose to isolate themselves. It's how sites like reddit gained a monopoly in the first place, people just look for convenience and everything being in one place.

You're right of course. People will flock to Meta, it will probably become the poster boy of the Fediverse over a few years, and then little by little the evil will creep in until it's so established we just accept it, same as we've done with Facebook. The terrible thing is that it will not be something we can just op-out of. I can chose not to use Facebook. With this situation, I would have to chose not to use the entire ActivityPub protocol, not just Meta's platform.

It's a disaster waiting to happen. Like you said, I don't think we can do much, and even if we try, it'll fracture the whole fediverse concept. But when you ask "Why are people concerned about Meta using ActivityPub?" this is why.

But when you ask "Why are people concerned about Meta using ActivityPub?" this is why.

It's still worth asking to clarify rather than guess, I wasn't sure what are we discussing and I got 3 different answers so far anyway - it's either about ruining the ethos, stealing the data and/or changing the protocol.

Let's just hope fediverse manages to get big enough before meta launches this so it manages to grow from the influx of new users rather than being stomped over completely. Or alternatively we get other big players into the fediverse too like google or MS, at which point they can fight between each other if they want to.

it's either about ruining the ethos, stealing the data and/or changing the protocol.

Honestly, it's probably all 3 and more we haven't even though of yet. I don't think anyone could have predicted all the scandals Facebook has been involved in regarding misuse of user data, and that was just on their own platform. ActivityPub literally hands them the keys to the castle. Add in all the toxic political stuff and.. it just makes my head hurt.

Anyway, I appreciate having the conversation with you. Discussing it has helped solidify my feelings about it.