Kev Quirk, one of the admins of Fosstodon (a Mastodon instance), destroys Meta in an email exchange.
fosstodon.org
The exchange is about Meta's upcoming ActivityPub-enabled network Threads. Meta is calling for a meeting, his response is priceless!
You are viewing a single comment
This has me thinking, is there a space set aside for putting profits over people instances out and center so admins can preemptively defederate and/or block them?
I haven't found one yet but I am rather new to this.
I think it'll be harder than that, even.
Meta doesn't need to spin up an instance to abuse user data on the fediverse, they just need an app that can read it. A hypothetical meta fediverse app could allow users to select their own instance and still read and collect data on the connected instances. As far as I know, there is no way in the protocol to prevent this.
It‘s not just about the data—which is bad enough but as you said they could just write a crawler to get at it. The question is why would they want to federate and why now? Meta being Meta the most likely reasons are terrible for the fediverse and it reminds me very much of Google and xmpp. I saw a really good writeup on this yesterday: https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
Thank you for sharing this, it was a fascinating and frustrating read
they may be able to read certain data from another instance but their current platform allows complete surveillance of what you looked at, how long, every click and scroll, etc while also being able to feed that in to manipulating what you see.
imo it will be basically impossible to have that kind of impact on people from instances not controlled by them, particularly if the other instance defederates so they don't see meta instance content.
See yashima's comment below: them adopting ActivityPub is just another way of killing it. The link they provided I think should be mandatory reading
Our exchange here is public, a gift to humanity and all aliens that might stumble upon it. If meta can make money from it, so be it. But anyone else can just as well.
Except they can build proprietary code on top of it and take over open-sourced activitypub adoption
It's just another way to kill competition
The people who would use a Meta variant will use it, and people like us will not. This reminds me of the interview with the Mexican restaurant that spawned Taco Bell. The lady who owned it essentially said, "I'm glad he (the founder of Taco Bell) was able to take our teachings and turn it into something. Good for him." If they build proprietary code, that's nice. ActivityPub will still be the same open-source code it's always been, and all of the Fediverse stuff will still exist. It kinda sucks that Meta is trying to make it seem like they're the good guys, but in the end there isn't much they can do to the already established stuff beyond make their own.
Edit: also, if they do try anything, we at least have previous data and most of the people who care about freedom to privacy here that I'm sure we could come up with something. We're not getting blindsided like with Google and XMPP back in the day.
The "extend" part is fundamental before they can actually get to the "extinguish" stage: https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
Once Meta joins in, a new set of dynamics are going to develop between old fediverse uses and new meta/fediverse users. If Meta adopts an "EEE" approach such as the ones described in the article, there's going to be disruption in the user experience from which the fediverse might never fully recover
Edit: clarification on the last sentence, my main concern is that a growing niche protocol such as ActivityPub might be destined to irrelevancy after Meta is done with the Extend & Extinguish, similarly to what happened to XMPP