Embrace, extend, extinguish. Only proven way to destroy decentralized, free, open source solutions.
First stage embrace might not even be malicious, but with corporations it will eventually lead to someone thinking: how can we monetize our position. It is just nature how business works.
It's worth pointing out that the wiki article lists several examples of Microsoft using this approach but I wouldn't class many of them as successful.
Not only was it not very successful, it's an old outdated Microsoft playbook from the 90s/early 00s and was targeted at closed source competitors and freeware, not open source software where you can just fork out a separate version.
By all means block Meta instances if you want, but they have 3 billion users, they definitely don't give a shit about a "competitor" with a few hundred thousand users. If simply the presence of a corporation in the Fediverse is enough to destroy it, then it wasn't going to last long anyways. It's embarassing that "embrace, extend, extinguish" caught on around here just because it's a catchy alliteration.
Let me offer a rebuttal. The fact that this playbook even exists and is well-known is a cause for concern. Yes, Microsoft’s campaign wasn’t very successful, but that doesn’t mean Meta won’t try or learn from Microsoft’s mistakes. I ask: is the probability of this happening non-zero, and if so, is it lower than you’re comfortable with? For me, and many others here, that answer is no.
Moreover, this is a greater problem: Meta is well-known and has practically infinite marketing budget. They can spin their app as the de facto, causing many people to lose control of their data. By association, some people will blame the Fediverse and not Meta. Defederating signals that we are not willing to participate with them and tells potential Fediverse users that they will not be able to engage with us—and whatever they decide, we cannot impact more.
The crux of my argument is risk management. Defederated is a conservative measure to prevent possible issues in the future.
Honestly this is just pure paranoia because nobody has given a solid reason as to why they would give a single shit about the few hundred thousand users here. Your only argument is "well it exists, so maaaybe they'll use it but better" which has no basis. As for losing control of your data, you have no control of your data here. It's public information. Any person, corporation, computer literate cat, etc can already scrape everything you post here. Don't mistake anonymity for data privacy.
Like I said, block em, defederate, whatever measures you want to take are an option, but for the love of god let's just stop parroting nonsense at eachother because it sounds clever. I came here to get away from reddit culture.
I just wanted to say, I am by no means technical but your position is exactly what I was thinking, if an open source project can't survive when it's competitors start using it, then it's never going to survive. The whole point is for it to be interoperable, resilient, and antifragile, and there are plenty of open source projects that achieved that. Competitors switching over to open source is a natural progression of any open source project if one assumes it is successful.
By all means block Meta instances if you want, but they have 3 billion users, they definitely don’t give a shit about a “competitor” with a few hundred thousand users.
If they don't give a shit then why do they add federation feature at all? It doesn't make sense.
Right now it's only supported for Instagram accounts right? So slap in ActivityPub and you've got an already working way to extend your app. It's easy, it's fast development, and it's cheap. It makes tons of sense.
Also, Meta and the rest of FAANG are a company of a bunch of nerds with a history of open sourcing software. This isn't some crazy play, this is completely normal for them.
Yeah and it’s also normal for them to act like sociopaths and shrug and say “sorry, this is just how capitalism works” when it gets exposed how cynically awful they been behaving.
There is zero evidence ethics will be followed here, Silicon Valley has spent decades building a good argument the precise opposite will happen.
What does ethics have to do with any of this? Like you said, it's all capitalism. The total amount of users in the fediverse is a rounding error on their 10-K. Why would they care about stealing the userbase?
Corporations don't act ethically unless they can monetize it or they're regulated.
Counterpoint: it’s not about capturing the current audience so much as heading a threat off at the pass.
I’m not going to argue way or other re: defederation. Just putting myself in their shoes and looking at the field they’re entering. They likely recognize there’s a brief window right now to capture twitter’s disaffected audience as they stumble while a nontrivial subset of those users are exploring open-source, non-corporate alternatives.
It makes perfect sense for them to cast the widest net they can in this moment. And it also makes sense for them to try to stifle the non-corporate side before it has a chance to gain any solid footing.
Exactly. Which is why I believe that all this fearmongering is because of Meta's reputation (rightfully so) rather than because Meta actually has a plan to destroy the fediverse. And it's not the like the fediverse can be actually destroyed, people can always start new instances at any time.
My take was that most people 1) don't want Meta/Facebook spam - low effort memes, propaganda, etc. and 2) don't want their content to be used by Meta. The former seems pretty easy - just defederate and you don't see any of their crap. The second is sort of a gray area... Whether or not you are diametrically opposed to Meta/Facebook or not, once you post your content to a public site, it's available. I haven't been here long, but defederation seems to work both ways, so FB would have to scrape content from known instances to get that content unless I'm mistaken.
FB could smoke any instance by DDOSing scrapes whether intended or otherwise, but once you post your data on a public forum, Meta could theoretically use it.
But to your comment - I don't see what starting a new instance would do for anyone for #2. Any new instance is discoverable by nature, so FB can come knocking at any time for content whether you defederate or not.
As if Lemmy currently isn't overrun with low effort memes? Have you seen all those cans of beans running amok here?
I imagine there are many parties already scraping content from the fediverse as we speak - that's the nature of public web content.
Not only was it not very successful, it’s an old outdated Microsoft playbook from the 90s/early 00s and was targeted at closed source competitors and freeware, not open source software where you can just fork out a separate version.
In Microsoft's case I agree. However Google successfully used EEE to essentially kill of XMPP where they initially added XMPP support to Google Talk, then extended it with their own features which weren't up to spec, and then later killed off XMPP support.
So when's extinguish come in? XMPP still exists, google dropping support didn't kill XMPP, it just doesn't work with their app anymore. They weren't trying to kill XMPP, they were just going what Google does and dropping projects as soon as they aren't profitable.
Thank you for this article. It shows exactly what's Facebook's plan. They will join in, make their own implementation that doesn't work well, pass the blame to the other platforms that use the protocol*, which in turn pressures them to debug and slow down themselves around Facebook's stuff, and then they cut them off entirely.
The correct attitude is to extinguish Facebook now. They're not welcome.
*And yes, this would work. Users are absolutely gullible about this shit, even without ever being told anything directly. Look at Apple users and their blue/green speech bubble thing. Every single flaw with the system is Apple's fault - but the dumbass cultminded users see the green speechbubble and blame the other users for the flaws, not Apple. They literally just did the stupid tribalism comic and it worked.
I’m not going to say you are wrong, but I have yet to meet a single fucking person that actually cares about bubble colors.
I hear this parroted so often, but never see it myself. Didn’t see it when all I had used was Android devices, didn’t see it when I tried an iPhone and got involved in their own communities.
XMPP still exists. Google dropped support for it, that's definitely not killing it. Google drops support for projects all the time by the way, it's kind of their thing.
Google dropping support for XMPP is what put it one foot in the grave. They abused the protocol to gain the lion's share of users for Google Talk, and then cut off any resistance that remained. It exists still, technically, but when's the last time you heard about or used it? I only know about it because EVE Online players used it for large group text communication before Discord became a thing.
XMPP still exists in the same way that critically endangered animals still exist: barely and by the adamant will of some dedicated few.
XMPP wasn't even remotely popular until Google integrated with it, I tried Jabber back in the day lol. Google brought the users it lost, you can't argue this was an attempt to kill it. At worst it's the same as before Google integrated.
That's the problem though. If XMPP had grew organically then it would fare much better. With how it happened, XMPP's growth was mostly because of Google, and that put a lot of pressure to other servers and the protocol's development to cater to them, because they had the majority of the users in their platform.
This is pure speculation at best, but since we're speculating I strongly disagree. The internet overall didn't care about open source software in the early 00s, and most people still don't today. Corporate freeware that can spend more on a polished product is going to win over the general population every time.
Talking about any alternative scenario is always speculation, but I believe the "How to kill decentralized networks" post that's been going around lately puts it nicely:
One thing is sure: if Google had not joined, XMPP would not be worse than it is today.
It looks like articles today are saying that Meta is delaying integrating ActivityPub at launch.
That said, I'm not seeing how we get to the last E, extinguish. By its very nature, ActivityPub is decentralized to avoid total control. So even if Meta embraces the technology and wants to monetize it (because capitalism, of course), extending ActivityPub would (hypothetically) be open source - or they would fork it, diverging and making their version closed, and otherwise not function in full with other ActivityPub instances (like with kbin, Lemmy, and Mastodon). Without buying the platform from the developers in full, I don't see how ActivityPub or the greater Fediverse dies. And I could just be missing something obvious, so if you can explain how we get there, I would really like to hear and understand.
I guess the only way I could see it is if Threads got so popular that people literally stopped using the other apps - but I also don't see that happening, because anyone already using stuff like Mastodon are using it because Twitter, Facebook, etc, suck ass and they've moved away from sites like that.
EDIT: Thanks to the one person that actually replied, I saw I was on the right track at the end, but failed to see the obvious (as I assumed).
It’s hard to predict but the extinguish part would come from bigger non-Threads instances implementing compatibility with Thread-only extensions (in the interest of their users, or for money) and fragmenting the community. Threads then becomes the defacto ActivityPub standard. Maybe some instances stay true to the standard but with extremely reduced communities because now they can’t see what other instances are publishing. So now you have to decide between your ideals and your social network. At best, you’re back to square 0.
It happens in the extend part.
Large corporation will have much more resources, they will implement features and refactoring, which small open source teams do not have capability to implement. They will start pulling users because they support features that other do not.
This also means that they will start getting control.
And then finally they just cut the communication, and split the community. All the way they can claim to be working "for the community"
It happens in the extend part.
This is it right here.
If you need a real-world example look at the original web browsers:
NCSA Mosaic (the very first web browser) fully supported what would be later known as HTTP verison .9 . There was universal compatibility because there was only one browser supporting HTTP. Later Netscape Navigator would come on the scene and add functionality that was not supported in Mosaic (like the <blink> tag for example), but nothing hugely breaking page views between the two browsers.
Fast forward to Internet Explorer v3, v4 and v5 where MS would not only show all the pages that the prior browsers would, but they EXTENDED by letting HTML still work without following all the same standards. It was easier to write pages for IE than it was to the specification. Then EXTENDED again by MS added ActiveX to web sites meaning now ONLY MS IE could display these pages, and for a time that meant only Windows computers could. This is the Extinguish part.
The "Extend" step gets adopted because its attractive to users.
Here's a non-computer analogy:
Lets say your current car get 25MPG. Now lets says that Shell come out with a gasoline that would let your same car go 40MPG with zero changes. Just buy Shell gas now at nearly the same price as anyone else's and you get significantly more range. Most people would do it. Moreover, Shell buys Honda and starts manufacturing cars designed to work on that same new Shell gas could go 60mpg with even more power! So when you go to buy your next car 5 years later after using the gas, you don't want to turn down 60MPG with more power. That Shell/Honda looks very attractive! All this time all the other gas stations have been going out of business because few people want to pay nearly the same amount for gasoline that only gets a fraction of the range. In the end, ONLY Shell gasoline is being sold, and nearly everyone drives a Shell/Honda to get the most benefit. This is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
Took us a while to shake off IE monopoly, only to squander it and now we have chromium (and to lesser extend, WebKit) monopoly. It's not as horrible as the IE monopoly yet, but we're currently in the "extend" stage here with Google forcing standard that benefits them and inconveniences their competitors.
I actually witnessed IE's rise, leaving netscape navigator and opera in dust, and then open source phoenix (later firefox) rising from ashes, steadily taking back user share. Google chrome took a good chunk too and by that time IE was done and desperate enough to give in and use chromium framework.
There was a point in time I thought it's impossible, the close source monstrosity with neverending standards incompatibilities will stay on quick launchers forever but it did not. What a journey.
i.e.: The IE approach. Take an open standard (HTML), then fill in the gaps it's missing with proprietary components (ActiveX), wait until your solutions become entrenched, then start doing evil stuff (implementing HTML slightly wrong so that developers have to do extra work to support compliant browsers).
I doubt that is the plan. The Fediverse is tiny, even after the recent growth. Prior to June it was basically just Mastodon, and I doubt Meta is agile enough to start this from scratch in response to the June growth. This is a lot of effort to take down a competitor that's widely considered to be rough around the edges, and is only just now hitting 2m active monthly users.
Realistically Threads has been in the works for a while as a way to eat Twitter's market share while Twitter destroys itself. I suspect they see value in the ActivityPub protocol in the same way Yahoo saw value in email in the 90s. Regardless of whether EEE is their intention or not, Meta's presence in the Fediverse is going to have major implications for its long term stability.
EDIT: on further reflection, I suspect the value they see is pressuring other would-be competitors to also implement ActivityPub. I suspect they do genuinely want to grow the Fediverse... because doing so would increase the amount of data they could collect and sell from it.
On embrace phase the intention is not malicious, they probably want things to grow. Corporations just in long run will eventually lead to someone asking "how can we capitalize this" and this lead the FOSS part of things to be cut out, and destroying the protocol at that point.
Fediverse should defederate every corporation and just grow naturally.
Same reason I am highly critical of Jack Dorsey's BlueSky and its attempt at rolling out a separate protocol. The last thing we need is for the Fediverse to be fragmented into a dozen protocols that do things ever-so-slightly differently and prevent network convergence.
Another reason to avoid it is that Jack Dorsey supports known anti-vaxxer and general conspiracy kook Robert F Kennedy Jr. Not the kind of people I'd want to run my social network.
That's bonkers, I don't even see what there is about the man to support. He's just an amalgam of nonsense conspiracies.
My boomer parents unironically think he's the best politician since sliced bread for the last few weeks.
It is very easy to argue that network convergence is NOT a good thing. That's the whole point of the "embrace, extended, destroy" point you responded to.
Unpopular opinion but defederating Meta is a terrible idea. What are people thinking will happen? Allow them to federate and you'll have mastodon users able to view and interact with posts from Threads without needing to be concerned about ads or tracking, without giving over any more control of privacy than they would to any other fediverse instance, and without needing to possess accounts homed within the Meta infrastructure.
Defederate them, and anyone who wants to interact with anyone on threads will most likely need to maintain a presence on both and handover more personal data to Meta than they otherwise would.
Defederating is actively hostile to fediverse users.
The idea is that at first threads.net will seem "normal", like all the other fediverses
Then they start adding features that either break against other servers, or straight up aren't supported, making threads.net seem more enticing just because all the neat features aren't on the other sites.
Think how Internet Explorer killed Netscape with all the Page Load errors caused by ActiveX, yet everyone wanted ActiveX sites.
Once they've walked through the path of least resistance and grabbed the bulk of the traffic, they just defederate from everyone.
Yep - best option is to defederate them well before they gain traction & start creating problem by not contributing back to the protocol in a way that benefits everyone.
I think after the community got burned by Microsoft & then google we’re finally learning.
Couldn’t any instance or app do this already? Like #peertube does videos in a way that isn’t necessarily fully federated with #mastodon. We get partial functionality everywhere and some places will have some extra things. If it is popular enough, then add it to the standard and let everyone who wants it add the functionality.
People are concerned about Facebook/Meta trying to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish ActivityPub - if I've understood correctly.
You're acting like there's only two situations: The entire Fediverse defederates with them, or the entire Fediverse federates with them. That's not the case.
I, personally, do not want to interact with anyone using Threads, because Meta has a proven history of poor moderation and of manipulating the narrative for political gain on Facebook and I see no reason to think they won't do the same here. I am not the only one who holds this opinion. Those of us who feel this way can use instances that defederate with them, and have our way.
If you want to interact with them, you can maintain an account on an instance that does federate with them. You do not need to have a Threads account, nor does anyone else.
meta is not here to promote open networks. They will do more harm than good. If you want to learn more about how google achieved it with the XMPP you can read the story here https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html written by one of the core developers.
This is an interesting article, but I don't think it's fair to blame Google for the death of XMPP. Google were the largest consumers of XMPP at one point, sure, but Google was in no way (and never has been) the market leader in communications applications. Google talk came and went, Hangouts came and went and so on. The argument of "When google pulled the plug, XMPP users had to use something else to keep in touch with friends" is equally true of Google messenger users as well. I don't know anyone that ever exclusively used a Google messenger app, now or then.
Google isn't entirely innocent here, they definitely didn't treat the protocol with the respect it deserved, but the development of XMPP was/is fraught with its own problems. I remember setting up an XMPP network for use in a small office as an internal chat tool, it was a nightmare of an experience. Different XMPP Clients had different levels of compatibility with different XMPP servers, many of the clients were just poor overall and the user-experience left a lot to be desired. All we wanted was a simple instant messenger for work, in the days before Slack and Teams. We ended up using OpenFire because it was developed in tandem with Spark, it was basic but worked well for our needs but any time I tried to adopt a different messenger, half the features didn't work.
I don't want to interact with anyone on Threads. It is new and it is Facebook.
Was about to say just that. I'll love to reject people that only follows big corpos.
It isn't the people. It's just if I already decided not to use Facebook or twitter. Why would I get back into bed with the devil on an experimental product?
No worries once threads becomes big enough they will defederate from fediverse /s That sure will be hostile to fediverse users.
I doubt they will defederate from the rest of the fediverse. If they reach a dominant position in the fediverse, they can hide behind the fediverse being open to competition to avoid anti trust actions
Meta joining the fediverse is like Raytheon joining anti-war protests. They are not there for sincere participation.
Maybe, but smart tactics means abusing their current good will and shutting them down when. It runs out.
When Thread finally enable federation, just unleash the Lemmy meme community there. We'll see how fast they roll back the federation feature on their own after their feeds are getting flooded with beans.
Strongly disagree here, better to cast them down now while the chance is there. No mercy or quarter provided to Meta considering their track record.
If anyone is foolish enough to go there, let them, but do not drag us towards them.
Some instances will federate and some will block them. It doesn't have to be all one or the other.
I'm all for federating with them. But give the user the ability to defederate their posts/comments based off their settings. I would rather my information not be supplied to any company owned by Facebook, that's just me.
The information they could get is already public. That’s how Activity Pub works.
Threads is new - unless you meet someone who for some reason only has a threads account, just talk to them elsewhere.
Otherwise, why is it the Fediverse user who has to get the threads account? Tell your people to make an account elsewhere. If you are conscientiously avoiding threads, you're probably the only one in the relationship with a principle boundary to cross in this situation.
that's exactly what I was thinking
They have also already declared that if you federate with them, your instance has to abide by their code of conduct, so they already throwing their weight around.
I think that's essentially true for any instance, though. You don't federate with instances you don't want to.
Lots of naivety here. Big corps only act in their own interest. They view the world in terms of opportunities and threats. Eating Twitter's lunch is an opportunity. The Fediverse is too small to be worth much today, but someday it might grow up and challenge the status quo. That makes it a threat.
While I think I agree we shouldn 't just defederate them. This is for a user to block them.
And if you tell users how they can block them, it will maybe take a bit of pressure away from admins to do it.
During the first wave of Twitter refugees , there was a lot of explaining about ignoring and blocking users. Which can never hurt IMHO. Certainly because it can decrease the load on the volunteers that run an instance
If Meta is running a fediverse instance, they're doing it for money. Sure, I might be able to block Meta-sourced content from reaching me, but that doesn't prevent me-sourced content from reaching Meta - where they can monetize it.
Show me how to do that, and I'm on it like white on rice.
@Nougat It doesn’t prevent them now, as they can just easily crawl all of your posts on here because you are posting on a *public instance*. Defederating from them does nothing to make your public content private.
@ninboy No, it doesn't make my public content private, but it would display my content alongside everything else that a threads user would see, which would make Meta's product more attractive to threads users. Increased threads userbase means increased ad revenue. Speaking of which, I'm now thinking about how content I created, not on a Meta-operated site, would be (as federation by default intends) displayed next to Meta advertising on their instance. My ability to prevent me-sourced content from reaching Meta's instance prevents me-sourced content from displaying next to advertisement I don't want it to be displayed next to.
@Nougat that makes sense, thanks for elaborating on your points. I guess as soon as we put any content out there we can’t prevent screenshots going viral on any context.
@ninboy Sure, you're not going to close that "analog hole," but in a case like that, the audience is aware that the content isn't from the site they're on. Me- (and you- and everyone-)sourced content appearing on a Meta site as though it was Meta content would carry some things to have real concerns about.
Of course, this is all really new(ish), so it's possible that a future internet audience will have a better awareness of how federation works, and bring that understanding with them while they browse. On the other hand, have you seen people?
Tangent: You tagged me in your original reply, which made me wonder why, and if I should do the same thing. Checking your username, I see you're on from mastodon.social, and here I am via kbin.social. I think this is my first real interplatform conversation like that, and I think it's really cool.
Easy peasy!
There is "messages or messages" in the middle, might want to change that.
Where would this be posted or stored to have legal effects?
Is there a text version available for others to copy?
I printed it out and put it on the front door of my house. The castle doctrine means that this is enforced against all internet companies I use in my house.
You make a good point.
Under the Castle Doctrine laws in my state, if Zuckerberg walked into my house without being invited then I could start blastin.
I'll post the legalese mumbo jumbo on my door to keep him out, like he's a vampire.
Where would this be posted or stored to have legal effects?
A different reality.
Neat, but it still means nothing. You're still posting in a public forum. You can copyright or watermark your work, but fair use is a two way street.
This is exactly my concern, I don't want my online activity to become another revenue stream for meta. If they can put ads next to our posts then we're back to working for free for the billionaires.
Yeah, not a fan of the ominous shadow threads™️ casts. I don't trust them not to flood the fediverse with assorted toxic garbage to push people back towards their walled garden platforms.
The fediverse offers something radical - a new shot at genuine self determination and a socialised, self-governing internet. That shit spells B-A-D N-E-W-S for incumbent platforms (imo) and they're bad actors in general; they wouldn't think twice about smothering anything that threatens their short/long term profits. Who'se going to stop them?
Might be a little bit overly risk concious but goddamn. If I were them, I'd be trying to kill alternative ecosystems before they grew - especially if mine (metas) is both trash to use, and be used by.
Even worse, the Threads app is a privacy nightmare
I bet meta really wants to keep track of people in fediverse
What does "Other Data" even cover? Could be literally anything Meta wants
I bet your DNA profile is part of the "other data". /s
Technically genetic information is covered by 'sensitive info.' I'm not joking.
I'm very new here but already feel invested in it's goals and success. We don't need a ton of users or to beat Reddit, etc, we need to be independent and free. Having a slice of the internet not controlled by capitalism is worth fighting for.
I believe things like Threads.net and the Fediverse are fundamentally at odds with each other because the Fediverse is meant to be an alternative not a replacement. No one should be hoping Reddit and others fail because if they do and only the Fediverse was left i believe it would be doomed to become like them.
I feel like avoiding a corporate trap for instant growth for the sake of protecting more sustainable long term growth is still in essence a focus on growth.
I agree with the decision to try and dodge this poison pill, but I disagree on the ideology that we shouldn't try and get as many people on board the fediverse as possible. I want federated social media to have revolutionary power, and you can't have power without leverage.
Thanks for the article. Well worth reading.
Meta is also a threat to the privacy of fediverse users
Ross Schulman, senior fellow for decentralization at digital rights nonprofit the Electronic Frontier Foundation, notes that if Threads emerges as a massive player in the fediverse, there could be concerns about what he calls “social graph slurping." Meta will know who all of its users interact with and follow within Threads, and it will also be able to see who its users follow in the broader fediverse. And if Threads builds up anywhere near the reach of other Meta platforms, just this little slice of life would give the company a fairly expansive view of interactions beyond its borders.
i'll join the voices saying this is bad for the fediverse, and bad for users in general. there are LOTS of normie users who are joining threads who will be shut off from learning about all the cool other servers if everyone blocks them. this will mean users who want to interact with them need to sign up on Threads, which is what we don't want.
what we want is that users on Threads see other servers, learn that they're better, and migrate over.
don't block Threads, show them how much better we are.
The entire fucking point of fediverse is that corporations can be disconnected when they try to come knocking. You're literally arguing against the reason the platform exists to begin with.
No offense, but I have plenty of ways of interacting with my 'normie' friends that don't involve whoring out my personal data. If someone insists they want to hang out with you but only when they're hosting a Pampered Chef party, they can fuck right off.
999/1000 users won't do any research on how 'this new fb thing' actually works beyond 'where can I sign up'. All they want is a stream of content which the greater fediverse provides free of charge. It is going to be the whole Reddit situation with one more step. Portray yourself as the shining beacon of love and liberty, slowly start creeping in more monetisation and then build a wall once you get big enough. Meta and the overwhelming majority of the user base don't care who is morally 'better'. That's not how capitalism works.
You're missing the bigger picture. If threads is federating with the fediverse, then that means Zuck is downloading and indexing a copy of everyone else's posts OUTSIDE of threads.
Why can't Meta (or any other shady company/
organization) do that now anyway. Just set up an innocent looking server, populate it with a small number of accounts to make it look legitimate, federate and start sucking in data. Do you really think every single federated server is run by people with hearts of gold and pure intentions? Your shit is already getting harvested, there's no stopping that. They don't need Threads if all they want is to index posts.
Meta sucks, I get it, but I think a lot of the fear Threads is generating is way overblown.
They can and probably have already and if not they will.
Someone posted this to make that point clear to everyone and a few people missed the point.
They can see what you post, but not your IP, first name, OS, screen density, headphone volume…. Etc.
And defederating/blocking them won't stop that. This just blocks the consumption of and interaction with threads content. Threads will still be able to see content on those servers. In much the same way that Lemmy.world users can still see beehaw content, despite beehaw defederating.
This is false. When you suspend an instance on Mastodon, it rejects all communication attempts from said suspended server.
Honestly, after literally over 30 years on the internet, I can safely say that this idea of bringing everyone together into one space, that will make both the space and the people better, does not work. Even back in the 90s it affected the signal to noise ratio badly. Now there are significant sets of bad actors, shitposting/meta and general noisy ignorance and hate that can easily, easily drown out any decent signal. It's like a permanent Eternal September.
Think of this like the subject of tolerance - typically criticised that as a philosophy, in that it would thus tolerate the very things that would undermine and destroy it. Rather, it is not a philosophy, but a social contract - if you don't use tolerance yourself, others are not bound to be tolerant of you. Of course, I'm not talking about being tolerant/intolerant here, but using the quality of engagement and participation in a community, as a barometer for whether that user should be engaged in that community.
Some barriers to entry are self-selection for appropriate users, and therefore a good thing - whether through obscurity, level of engagement, education or whatever. Without these, everything gets overrun and crushed. We haven't yet found a good self-moderating system for online communities that provides everyone with a positive and fulfilling experience.
Threads can be Threads. The fediverse can be the fediverse. No-one is forced to choose just one, and trying to force them together is going to crush the fediverse. Lemmy has about 20,000 active users. Threads got 30 million signups in 24 hours.
Just gotta like... make sure they don't echo chamber each other into January 6ing again.
Naw man, don't play games with your abusive ex. Meta can stay over there, we can stay over here. We don't need to talk to each other.
Do you honestly think only the positive, friendly people would hop over? The entire fediverse will be overrun by crazy political conspiracy theories and hostile homophobic/transphobic/anti abortion stuff in no time.
Why is this not more widely talked about? Please share this.
It's not widely shared because the actual facts of that story don't help the "Facebook will kill activity pub" narrative.
Before Google Talk and Facebook Messenger adopted XMPP it was an extremely niche messaging protocol only used by nerds. After Google Talk and Facebook Messenger dropped XMPP it went back to being a niche messaging protocol used only by nerds.
The standing of XMPP was, if anything, better off after it was abandoned by Google Talk and Facebook Messenger than before those platforms adopted it.
So then for somebody trying to scare monger about Meta, this story doesn't help. It hurts that narrative, and that's why people panicing about Threads aren't talking about XMPP.
Has lemmy.world blocked meta?
As far as I could tell they haven't signed the anti meta pact so probably not.
That site is really bringing me back to my Myspace days
yeah, for real.. wtf is up with that page?
Personality
If personalities were bumper stickers.... this would tell me that they were a 13 year old girl who just learned html.
Or... 'don't take me serious!'
Do you write screeds about the woke mob and women with blue hair too?
It's not normal, you're completely right about that. It doesn't matter. Everything does not have to look like the corporate internet and frankly advocating that everything on the internet wear a suit and tie to be "taken serious" (your words) is something you should re-examine. Spaces with different cultures are good and having a kneejerk reactionary intolerance to them is bad.
Spontaneous idea of how to use copyright law for keeping Meta out of the Fediverse (more for fun):
Introduction:
Parts of the Fediverse, including Mastodon, are software licensed under the APGL license. This license is a great choice because it forces the ones running the software to grant users access to the source code. GPL for example would allow to run proprietary services based on GPL code. The AGPL does not.
Companies like Meta and Google will likely not use AGPL code because it might force them to also publish their proprietary systems behind the scenes.
However, this does not help much for keeping the Fediverse save. They simply implement their own software which will not be open source.
Therefore we may need another approach. Defederating is the simplest and in my opinion currently the best. It's easy and keeps people in control.
However, there could be some 'automatic' approach using copyright law.
It's a hack which allows to use existing law to regulate the way instances can federate.:
instances would Federate only if the other side can provide a certain piece of information called X
X is protected by copyright law, therefore by default, instances are not allowed to provide X
However, X is released under a license which for permits to copy and distribute X under certain conditions
The conditions allow to tune who can legally federate
Conditions could be
The server software must be AGPL licensed
The instance must not be owned by a company with a certain amount of annual revenue
Open question is, who owns the copyright of X?
Haven't you seen what RHEL is doing? Apparently if you're big enough you can just say fuck that. I mean who you gonna answer to? Is anybody really gonna take this all the way up to the supreme court?
I tried to sign up for this junk and it immediately suspended my account at the end of the sign up process for some reason. Now it's demanding my mobile number to appeal it.
I just won't be apart of any instance that chooses to be federated with Meta. There are many people like me, and I hope kbin and most lemmy instance owners are aware of this.
Is there a way for a Lemmy user to block content from Meta's instance? If so, I'd love to.
So I'm on Threads (occupational hazard, I have Instagram for work) and it's a surreal experience. It's like if everyone you know on Facebook and Twitter joined you on a muted Tumblr overlay. Someone's already @'d Zuck to ask for a "home feed that's just your follows." So... like Mastodon.
Use Threads to preach the benefits of Mastadon, Lemmy, and the Fediverse in general. Spread the good word that if you don't want to be bombarded by ads, manipulated by unscrupulous algorithms, and have your data jealously horded to be sold to who knows then get off Threads and enter the cool kids zone!
Threads being in the Fediverse is a plus for me, not a negative. It means I could follow regular people and friends who would never in a million years join places like Mastodon or Lemmy while I still get the benefits of being on those platforms, all while being shielded from Meta’s ads and data harvesting. The only issue is I don’t actually believe Zuck will go through with it. They’ll either never federate or severely limit it if they do.
Mastodon themselves have put out a post outlining how this will affect them (it won’t) and how EEE is not a threat. If Meta does eventually opt out of ActivityPub then cool. It’s not like that’s why Mastodon users were there in the first place.
Embrace, extend and destroy is a known, well established, concept. Microsoft was quite open about how this is to be done.
It has already happened to established decentralised networks. See here!
Maybe it won't happen to Mastodon, maybe they have the masterminds who can counter it. But it is imo pretty clear that this is what Meta plans to do.
Read their privacy policy. They already admitted they will scrape info from 3rd party users/communities which interact with their users.
I get why people don’t want anything from Meta around stuff they use. They’re obviously awful. I just don’t think that even 5% of Fediverse users are going to ditch for Threads if Meta defederates. They were here before Meta and I can promise you not a single person on earth is signing up for Mastodon because it will federate with Threads only to have the rug pulled out from under them. This is a small niche community and that will not change with or without Meta. The people that Meta could siphon with EEE are already in their ecosystem.
The guy in charge is essentially in cahoots with Meta and is under an NDA from them.
It doesn’t take more than 2 seconds of thinking to see how empty the words are that Mastodon is not at risk.
Threads federates with Mastodon instances
Threads uses its massive engineering resources to implement proprietary functionality that’s incompatible with Mastodon instances
A non-trivial number of Mastodon users jump over to Threads, this is the first wave of people that leave Mastodon
Threads drops support for federation and silos itself off
The majority of the remainder of people on Mastodon jump over to Threads because they want to be able to continue to interact with the people that jumped over to Threads and/or because they want to be able to continue to interact with normies now that they’re used to that
Mastodon is effectively dead, safe for a select few that stick to their guns
3 and 5 will happen in a cascading manner, the more people switch to Threads, the more others will also want to switch.
Number 3 will be difficult since most of the users moving are moving to get away from Meta. I find it hard to believe they'd just jump back into that ecosystem.
A lot of people aren't really ideologically opposed to Meta, they're just on Mastodon since it's there's less friction to use it than Twitter (see rise of Bluesky). Threads will "fix" a lot of issues people have with Mastodon (CW, no algorithm, inability to advertise, instances moving/going under) and they'll move without thinking anything of it since they can still access all of their Mastodon content
Of course the move back isn't going to be as easy, I doubt Meta is going to implement robust account migration, and then the easier choice is to stay on Threads. This is also ignoring the incompatibilities improvements to ActivityPub that Meta will introduce later on in Meta's lifespan, which will be poorly documented and rapidly changing if they open it up at all
Even if many Mastodon users don't switch immediately, this is enough to hamper the long term growth/health of the platform
Did meta anounce that threads will be compatible with mastadon or did miss something.
They previously announced that they would federate with ActivityPub, but yesterday we learned that it won't happen for "three months." With all the European regulatory issues and other factors, I'll bet it will be a lot longer than that. In fact, I'd be surprised if we ever see full federation capability.
Oh, was EU able to block them from joining the fediverse or are they just stalling for some other reason?
They haven't said why. I'm assuming that federation with outside entities would present some logistical problems for them w/r/t their privacy obligations in Europe. If that's right, I suspect the whole ActivityPub thing could be "delayed" indefinitely.
Thanks y'all for explaining. Imo it is a good thing that it is "delayed".
Yep. They said it won't have the activitypub protocol implemented at launch, but it will come soon after, so it can be federated with Mastodon.
My first reaction is this sounds like a great way to onboard more folks into the fediverse - but is this a perhaps a paradox of intolerance? Does Meta as a corporate entity have a natural intolerance to the freeness and openness of the fediverse, and if so, does it need to be violently rejected?
I don't understand why this is even a question. Is the tragedy of the commons not taught in american education? Is Land Clearance(one example of many linked) and Enclosure not taught? (Serious question open to anyone, I do not know what history is taught outside major european countries)
This is essential basic history to understand how land developed from being a collectively worked upon thing, decentralised, owned by everybody that worked on it, into something that was owned by a tiny tiny number of people so that they could exploit it to the maximum degree.
Decentralisation is the creation of a commons. The goal of corporations is centralisation of power and monopoly. They are at complete polar opposites in goals. The entire point of the fediverse in the first place is to destroy the centralised power of web corporations who took what was originally a digital commons populated by thousands of sites and communities and through a form of digital enclosure turned it into a space controlled by a handful of companies.
Learn history other than the popular military shit folks. It is essential in analysing what affects you.
As a product of American eduation, I can say resolutely that no, that was absolutely not taught.
Of course, this is partially because American education sucks and partially because we never HAD common land here: everything was privately owned, after it was stolen from the people who already lived here, and then most of it had people who had no say in the matter enslaved to work on it for the people who stole the land.
Of course, this is ALSO not really taught, because it'd make people feel sad and make the US look kinda bad, so it's always talked about but you get like, a week of coverage on both subjects, at most.
It saddens me to hear that kids in the US don't learn about the fuckups of their ancestors, as this might "upset" them. My kids here in Germany learn about the Holocaust and they take trips to concentration camps so they learn about the past. Not to guilt them or shame them, but to teach them, so history doesn't repeat itself. (And we're not even native Germans, we're east European immigrants.)
The problem here is conservatives call learning about our past mistakes "woke" and do everything in their power to remove this curriculum from our schools. For some reason, they look at it as "trying to destroy our great nation and traditional values" instead of "learning from our past to be a better country going forward."
Except military, which they teach A LOT, we spent maybe 5 days on the crimes we committed against Native Americans, but an entire month or more on the Revolutionary War. Hell, we spent longer on learning about "world religions" than we did all our mistakes. Plus, any WW1/WW2 war crimes committed by our side is not taught whatsoever.
It saddens me to hear that kids in the US don’t learn about the fuckups of their ancestors, as this might “upset” them.
Nationalism is a disease.
I'm probably going to get mega canceled here but I think a good portion of it is that the Holocaust is history.
A lot of what we don't talk about is how we treated the Native Americans because we're STILL shitting on them from on high. For example, the Dakota Access Pipeline is the same old shit, different century.
Also talking about how we've treated people of color, and any discussion around chattel slavery, ends up being "uncomfortable" because an awful lot of people in this country don't seem to see any problem with it and would be perfectly happy if we could toss out the civil rights acts and go back to having separate water fountains.
TLDR: it's 'history' in Germany because ya'll arrest people giving nazi salutes, but in the US wearing a KKK robe is "free speech".
Agreed. American history is terribly white-washed.
Basically some dudes came over from England, Indians cooked them corn and turkey and everyone was happy. A few years later their descendants got mad at England, dressed up as the Indians and threw tea off a boat. Some shots were fired but we settled down over a piece of paper that guarantees freedom and guns for all.
Later you might learn that “all” means white land-owning males but eventually that got expanded and now we are al happy in the greatest country in the world (yes, that part is also taught), and every morning for 180 days of the year for 13 straight years we stand up and recite a poem about how much we love our country.
Maybe it’s changing, idk. I graduated the public school system 20 years ago. My kindergartener came home a few months ago saying he watched a video on MLK Jr in his class where they talked about his assassination. I thought that was a bit dark to go to in kindergarten but at least it’s talked about, even somewhat.
It’s all but against the law in Florida (maybe other states as well?) to teach that aspect of history. Wouldn’t want the white kids to feel guilty for being white… because they know about things that happened in the past.
From what I've seen, irregardless threads/there version on the fediverse is going to scrape any and all instances also on the fediverse. Blocking them wont necessarily help with any of this, but maybe if even communities do they wont have enough content to make it profitable? Maybe I'm naive. Well, I know I am, but any way to stick it to the man is a good idea in my book.
Although the scraping would happen either way, and if they really felt like it, they could just spool up their own private instance to do some scraping that way instead, even without tying it into Threads.
The goal short term isn't to be profitable though. The goal is to pull enough users so they can effectively stunt the growth of 'competition'.
The only drawback is that it will only start working after the first piece of content from threads.net has been shared on your instance - for now it returns a 404 not found.
Edit: Mileage may vary, depending on how Threads solves its fediverse integration.
Thanks! Keeping this open so i can do it later.
Getting a 404 error, but might just be due to kbin upgrades, etc.
Does /d/ block an instance?
I think there is a misunderstanding in the kbin community.
/d/ blocks a domain, A domain is not an instance.
But i'm not shure what /d/ blocks or not. As fas as I know it's what's between the bracket's after a post ()
I'm not worried at all about Zuck taking over Mastodon at all, they'll try but they are just so incompetent, because literally every single product idea they have they either stole or bought from somebody else. Great tech, terrible products, zero originality is the Facebook mantra and that is because they have a delusional CEO that they can't fire, because Zuck has delude himself into thinking he's an "ideas" guy like Jobs instead of an "executions" guy like Bezos that he really is, and until he realizes that, he will always fail.
(also, delusional for actually thinking Ready Player One is a good book)
If making a TikTok clone didn't get people to switch from TikTok, why would they think making a Twitter clone is going to get people to switch from Twitter?
The only way I see Facebook being a threat is when they give up on making their Twitter clone and start providing easy subscription service hosting for Mastodon/Lemmy to EEE. THAT would be the time to worry.
While you may dismiss Zuckerberg as delusional, he's shown a talent for using others' ideas and making them profitable under Facebook. The success of Instagram and WhatsApp is proof. Google+ is nowhere to be seen anymore.
As for Mastodon, underestimating Meta's potential threat, particularly federating with Mastodon (this can be seen as "easy hosting" of something like Mastodon), might be a mistake. Even without originality, they have the resources to cause significant disruption.
I feel like we are seeing lots of these tech companies just clawing at new innovations for profit cause they can't seem to run a stable business otherwise without fucking things up somehow. See the the crypto/nft boom, AI and it's rapid and still somewhat untested and shoddy implementation, etc. We've got strikes popping up in the US as the months go on cause people are definitely feeling the shittification of things in multiple industries including tech and entertainment as of late.
Everything tech companies like meta have been doing in the last several years is looking for their next growth fix to keep their investors happy while running their business like a toddler between sweets.
Elon happened to set Twitter on fire, Instagram is failing to beat TikTok in short form content or even competing with things like YouTube, Facebook itself has been shriveling up over the years, now there's some cool new tech space in the Fediverse and no corporates taking advantage of it - probably looks like early crypto to Zuck if he can swoop in and outpace the open source projects with enough funding.
Facebook itself has been shriveling up
Like George Costanza's member in the swimming pool.
Threads is not an all an idea but an execution. Twitter abandoned it's value proposition of nobodies being able to shit post non-billionaire elites and threads just relaunched that concept. Way different situation than trying to compete with TikTok since Twitter set itself on fire and made itself unfashionable. Nobody needs to innovate the next Twitter they just need to replace what Twitter took away. The fediverse itself would still seem to service a different demographic from that since shit posting celebs is all normies ever wanted from that platform.
I think that an important part of twitter was the proximity to power through politicians, journalists and celebrities. If threads is good at making those people switch over, then I think a lot of other people will switch over as well. On big part of twitter users is people who love discussing the news and current events and that's much more appealing when you can do it on the same platform as people who are in the news or write the news.
(On the other hand lemmy has Margot Robbie so maybe we're in the race as well?)
Does Meta entering the Fediverse mean that they'll federate with Lemmy instances or just Mastodon instances?
If they do both-ways federation (I've heard rumors of it being one-way only) it should theoretically be both Lemmy and Mastodon, but it will work better with Mastodon because they're both for the same purpose (i.e. Twitter-like apps).
Most of the larger Mastodon and Lemmy instances have defederated threads dot net.
You're correct, I was moreso referring to federation in general.
Bear in mind that this blocks you from seeing Threads posts on your profile. Unless you private your profile, this changes nothing as far as what they're able to see/pull from your account. Their official documentation states that the block only prevents users from seeing or retrieving content from those servers. You'd probably have to be performing some DNS-level filtering on incoming requests or web firewalling from the host level to prevent their incoming requests.
Sure hope they get defederated at least.
That's just the "block" function from the moderation section of Mastodon. Again, this won't prevent them from accessing your profile. It only stops people on your instance from being able to see anything from that domain. The only way to stop them from getting access to anything posted to your profile is by going private.
If I can dig up the now closed Issue on Mastodon's GitHub, I'll post it in an edit. Main devs confirmed this is how blocking servers and "federation" is designed to operate.
Wait, if I understand it right, Mastodon can't defederated with an instance? As in, I don't want to provide my content for the instance?
Lemmy can do that, right? Because if not, then the whole idea is just a goldmine of free content to milk for corporations, that they don't even have to pay for hosting. And I'm extremely against giving someone a way how to monetize my content under such circumstances. (Aside from the analog hole, you can't stop bots scraping it, but that's at least some effort they have to do...)
What's to stop that corporation from using private browsing to scrape that content anyway? Sure they don't have as much of a way to identify and link their ad profiles to other users, but if it's pure content they're after, unless a home server is completely siloed from the rest of the world and aggressively defends against that kind of scraping activity, that can't be stopped. That's the argument the Mastodon devs made.
Can't you get banned from Threads? What happens when someone posts content on a Fediverse server that isn't supposed to be allowed on Threads? Porn, for example.
I assume so, yeah. That pins on Meta's moderation doing its job. I'm talking the other direction, though - Threads/Meta scraping your data from your Mastodon account.
According to Meta, they have plans to integrate ActivityPub into Threads some time soon, meaning they would be able to federate with Mastodon, Calckey, Misskey, Pleroma, Lemmy, Friendica, etc.
But hopefully that means any given lemmy instance could un-federate from it, right?
Yes- but it’s up to your instance admin to do that
What I heard some people said about the fediverse was that before email was controlled by big corporations you can host your own email and no issues. Nowadays its much harder for a regular person to do this because big corporations took control of the federated email. So to my understanding even this social networks are in danger of the same thing happening. Please anyone correct me if I am wrong.
You are. It's just as easy now to host your own mail server as it was thirty years ago
Hosting mail is easy, not getting hit by spam filters is the difficult part
Is there a way to block meta in lemmy? Im in the lemmy.world instance, or is it up to the developers and maintainers of each lemmy instance?
The maintainers of the instance can defederate, or you can block in your settings, but that’s only a personal level. I’m not sure the community name to block though
How likely is a federated threads going to be used to harvest data for whatever advertising or AI purpose meta has?
Aside from ensuring their launch product has immediate content, the only reason meta would do this is for that $$.
That said, it could be a symbiotic relationship with instances who's users aren't super worried about that & find value from the addtl content it will surely bring.
There's nothing stopping them from harvesting data with or without Threads. They can just create their own hidden Lemmy, Mastadon servers and pull all the data that way. Sure, someone could catch on and block that server, but they could just spin more up wherever.
This is the main concern.
I create Threads. It gets 30 million users very quickly. Lemmy users only make up say, 1 million users.
I make changes to Threads that don't follow the ActivityPub protocol to the T, this makes the Lemmy servers glitchy when interacting with Threads content until Lemmy can be patched, but I'll just keep making these changes to Threads over and over.
User A likes Lemmy, but it's really starting to glitch out all the time. They have a lot of friends they interact with on Threads and because Lemmy has so many issues they say fuck it, hop over to Threads so they can consistently keep up with their friends/community.
Sure, its a symbiotic relationship for the people who “aren’t super worried” about it, until metas platform becomes big enough to defederate with the rest of the fediverse, taking all of its users and content with it, and leaving you on an empty network because everyone you know “just uses the meta instance”…
I'm just hoping it's a massive failure just like the metaverse. I wish no success for the Zuck fuck in any of his endeavors.
Tbh it’s far more likely they’ll implement extensions to activitypub that are specific only to threads & make activitypub users want them - but can’t have them - this peeling off users for them vs a slower moving, free & collaborative platform.
Imho to avoid a Google loves XMPP (they pretty well killed it) situation ActivityPub servers need to largely block Threads completely or face being extinguished in much the same way as XMPP. Don’t give them a foothold & don’t trust that a private entity like Meta will play nice, they aren’t joining to be a peer, they’re joining to either take it over or kill the competition.
I mean, how is a bot not already crawling through public sites like Lemmy and Mastodon for the purposes of AI training? Federated or unfederated, if you are providing social media services that data you have is already out there.
I really don’t have a problem with Meta creating a federated social media. I feel like it’s a benefit to the fediverse overall.
Someone want to explain how to get followers on there? Feel like posting to the wind on that site?
it's really hard right now if you don't have followers on insta / twitter already. it's gonna be easier once they add post search and more features
So we're all pro federation and decentralization, until we aren't... I think this is a very preemptive and paranoid measure, but thankfully it will work out just as the technology was built for, some will block, some wont, everyone will make their choice, and be happy in their corner of the internet.
That's disingenuous. It's not like Meta is some unknown party here with a clean reputation. They have a history, one that repeatedly shows they couldn't care less for the fundamental freedoms of the fediverse. Just like in society, for us to build free platforms where everyone is welcome, we must paradoxically not tolerate those that wish to wield the freedom of the platform against itself.
Ever heard of Mastodon blocklists? I mean defederation has been happening for a while.
But I think that's fine. Instances should have every right to block instances that they disagree with.
Except Meta by it's nature will aim towards Centralization. They're contradictive to the concept. It doesn't even take much thought to see the issue here.
Also as app_priori pointed out, Almost every instance already has a list of defederated instances.
This is like starting to date a known habitual cheater
Embrace, extend, extinguish. Only proven way to destroy decentralized, free, open source solutions.
First stage embrace might not even be malicious, but with corporations it will eventually lead to someone thinking: how can we monetize our position. It is just nature how business works.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
It's worth pointing out that the wiki article lists several examples of Microsoft using this approach but I wouldn't class many of them as successful.
Not only was it not very successful, it's an old outdated Microsoft playbook from the 90s/early 00s and was targeted at closed source competitors and freeware, not open source software where you can just fork out a separate version.
By all means block Meta instances if you want, but they have 3 billion users, they definitely don't give a shit about a "competitor" with a few hundred thousand users. If simply the presence of a corporation in the Fediverse is enough to destroy it, then it wasn't going to last long anyways. It's embarassing that "embrace, extend, extinguish" caught on around here just because it's a catchy alliteration.
Let me offer a rebuttal. The fact that this playbook even exists and is well-known is a cause for concern. Yes, Microsoft’s campaign wasn’t very successful, but that doesn’t mean Meta won’t try or learn from Microsoft’s mistakes. I ask: is the probability of this happening non-zero, and if so, is it lower than you’re comfortable with? For me, and many others here, that answer is no.
Moreover, this is a greater problem: Meta is well-known and has practically infinite marketing budget. They can spin their app as the de facto, causing many people to lose control of their data. By association, some people will blame the Fediverse and not Meta. Defederating signals that we are not willing to participate with them and tells potential Fediverse users that they will not be able to engage with us—and whatever they decide, we cannot impact more.
The crux of my argument is risk management. Defederated is a conservative measure to prevent possible issues in the future.
Honestly this is just pure paranoia because nobody has given a solid reason as to why they would give a single shit about the few hundred thousand users here. Your only argument is "well it exists, so maaaybe they'll use it but better" which has no basis. As for losing control of your data, you have no control of your data here. It's public information. Any person, corporation, computer literate cat, etc can already scrape everything you post here. Don't mistake anonymity for data privacy.
Like I said, block em, defederate, whatever measures you want to take are an option, but for the love of god let's just stop parroting nonsense at eachother because it sounds clever. I came here to get away from reddit culture.
I just wanted to say, I am by no means technical but your position is exactly what I was thinking, if an open source project can't survive when it's competitors start using it, then it's never going to survive. The whole point is for it to be interoperable, resilient, and antifragile, and there are plenty of open source projects that achieved that. Competitors switching over to open source is a natural progression of any open source project if one assumes it is successful.
If they don't give a shit then why do they add federation feature at all? It doesn't make sense.
Right now it's only supported for Instagram accounts right? So slap in ActivityPub and you've got an already working way to extend your app. It's easy, it's fast development, and it's cheap. It makes tons of sense.
Also, Meta and the rest of FAANG are a company of a bunch of nerds with a history of open sourcing software. This isn't some crazy play, this is completely normal for them.
Yeah and it’s also normal for them to act like sociopaths and shrug and say “sorry, this is just how capitalism works” when it gets exposed how cynically awful they been behaving.
There is zero evidence ethics will be followed here, Silicon Valley has spent decades building a good argument the precise opposite will happen.
What does ethics have to do with any of this? Like you said, it's all capitalism. The total amount of users in the fediverse is a rounding error on their 10-K. Why would they care about stealing the userbase?
Corporations don't act ethically unless they can monetize it or they're regulated.
Counterpoint: it’s not about capturing the current audience so much as heading a threat off at the pass.
I’m not going to argue way or other re: defederation. Just putting myself in their shoes and looking at the field they’re entering. They likely recognize there’s a brief window right now to capture twitter’s disaffected audience as they stumble while a nontrivial subset of those users are exploring open-source, non-corporate alternatives.
It makes perfect sense for them to cast the widest net they can in this moment. And it also makes sense for them to try to stifle the non-corporate side before it has a chance to gain any solid footing.
Exactly. Which is why I believe that all this fearmongering is because of Meta's reputation (rightfully so) rather than because Meta actually has a plan to destroy the fediverse. And it's not the like the fediverse can be actually destroyed, people can always start new instances at any time.
My take was that most people 1) don't want Meta/Facebook spam - low effort memes, propaganda, etc. and 2) don't want their content to be used by Meta. The former seems pretty easy - just defederate and you don't see any of their crap. The second is sort of a gray area... Whether or not you are diametrically opposed to Meta/Facebook or not, once you post your content to a public site, it's available. I haven't been here long, but defederation seems to work both ways, so FB would have to scrape content from known instances to get that content unless I'm mistaken.
FB could smoke any instance by DDOSing scrapes whether intended or otherwise, but once you post your data on a public forum, Meta could theoretically use it.
But to your comment - I don't see what starting a new instance would do for anyone for #2. Any new instance is discoverable by nature, so FB can come knocking at any time for content whether you defederate or not.
I’m just here for the beans
In Microsoft's case I agree. However Google successfully used EEE to essentially kill of XMPP where they initially added XMPP support to Google Talk, then extended it with their own features which weren't up to spec, and then later killed off XMPP support.
So when's extinguish come in? XMPP still exists, google dropping support didn't kill XMPP, it just doesn't work with their app anymore. They weren't trying to kill XMPP, they were just going what Google does and dropping projects as soon as they aren't profitable.
Google successfully did this to XMPP.
https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
Thank you for this article. It shows exactly what's Facebook's plan. They will join in, make their own implementation that doesn't work well, pass the blame to the other platforms that use the protocol*, which in turn pressures them to debug and slow down themselves around Facebook's stuff, and then they cut them off entirely.
The correct attitude is to extinguish Facebook now. They're not welcome.
*And yes, this would work. Users are absolutely gullible about this shit, even without ever being told anything directly. Look at Apple users and their blue/green speech bubble thing. Every single flaw with the system is Apple's fault - but the dumbass cultminded users see the green speechbubble and blame the other users for the flaws, not Apple. They literally just did the stupid tribalism comic and it worked.
I’m not going to say you are wrong, but I have yet to meet a single fucking person that actually cares about bubble colors.
I hear this parroted so often, but never see it myself. Didn’t see it when all I had used was Android devices, didn’t see it when I tried an iPhone and got involved in their own communities.
XMPP still exists. Google dropped support for it, that's definitely not killing it. Google drops support for projects all the time by the way, it's kind of their thing.
Google dropping support for XMPP is what put it one foot in the grave. They abused the protocol to gain the lion's share of users for Google Talk, and then cut off any resistance that remained. It exists still, technically, but when's the last time you heard about or used it? I only know about it because EVE Online players used it for large group text communication before Discord became a thing.
XMPP still exists in the same way that critically endangered animals still exist: barely and by the adamant will of some dedicated few.
XMPP wasn't even remotely popular until Google integrated with it, I tried Jabber back in the day lol. Google brought the users it lost, you can't argue this was an attempt to kill it. At worst it's the same as before Google integrated.
That's the problem though. If XMPP had grew organically then it would fare much better. With how it happened, XMPP's growth was mostly because of Google, and that put a lot of pressure to other servers and the protocol's development to cater to them, because they had the majority of the users in their platform.
This is pure speculation at best, but since we're speculating I strongly disagree. The internet overall didn't care about open source software in the early 00s, and most people still don't today. Corporate freeware that can spend more on a polished product is going to win over the general population every time.
Talking about any alternative scenario is always speculation, but I believe the "How to kill decentralized networks" post that's been going around lately puts it nicely:
App I work on, we're replacing XMPP with messages over push/rest/websocket. XMPP is not fun to use compared to newer stuff.
It looks like articles today are saying that Meta is delaying integrating ActivityPub at launch.
That said, I'm not seeing how we get to the last E, extinguish. By its very nature, ActivityPub is decentralized to avoid total control. So even if Meta embraces the technology and wants to monetize it (because capitalism, of course), extending ActivityPub would (hypothetically) be open source - or they would fork it, diverging and making their version closed, and otherwise not function in full with other ActivityPub instances (like with kbin, Lemmy, and Mastodon). Without buying the platform from the developers in full, I don't see how ActivityPub or the greater Fediverse dies. And I could just be missing something obvious, so if you can explain how we get there, I would really like to hear and understand.
I guess the only way I could see it is if Threads got so popular that people literally stopped using the other apps - but I also don't see that happening, because anyone already using stuff like Mastodon are using it because Twitter, Facebook, etc, suck ass and they've moved away from sites like that.
EDIT: Thanks to the one person that actually replied, I saw I was on the right track at the end, but failed to see the obvious (as I assumed).
It’s hard to predict but the extinguish part would come from bigger non-Threads instances implementing compatibility with Thread-only extensions (in the interest of their users, or for money) and fragmenting the community. Threads then becomes the defacto ActivityPub standard. Maybe some instances stay true to the standard but with extremely reduced communities because now they can’t see what other instances are publishing. So now you have to decide between your ideals and your social network. At best, you’re back to square 0.
It happens in the extend part.
Large corporation will have much more resources, they will implement features and refactoring, which small open source teams do not have capability to implement. They will start pulling users because they support features that other do not.
This also means that they will start getting control.
And then finally they just cut the communication, and split the community. All the way they can claim to be working "for the community"
This is it right here.
If you need a real-world example look at the original web browsers:
NCSA Mosaic (the very first web browser) fully supported what would be later known as HTTP verison .9 . There was universal compatibility because there was only one browser supporting HTTP. Later Netscape Navigator would come on the scene and add functionality that was not supported in Mosaic (like the <blink> tag for example), but nothing hugely breaking page views between the two browsers.
Fast forward to Internet Explorer v3, v4 and v5 where MS would not only show all the pages that the prior browsers would, but they EXTENDED by letting HTML still work without following all the same standards. It was easier to write pages for IE than it was to the specification. Then EXTENDED again by MS added ActiveX to web sites meaning now ONLY MS IE could display these pages, and for a time that meant only Windows computers could. This is the Extinguish part.
The "Extend" step gets adopted because its attractive to users.
Here's a non-computer analogy:
Lets say your current car get 25MPG. Now lets says that Shell come out with a gasoline that would let your same car go 40MPG with zero changes. Just buy Shell gas now at nearly the same price as anyone else's and you get significantly more range. Most people would do it. Moreover, Shell buys Honda and starts manufacturing cars designed to work on that same new Shell gas could go 60mpg with even more power! So when you go to buy your next car 5 years later after using the gas, you don't want to turn down 60MPG with more power. That Shell/Honda looks very attractive! All this time all the other gas stations have been going out of business because few people want to pay nearly the same amount for gasoline that only gets a fraction of the range. In the end, ONLY Shell gasoline is being sold, and nearly everyone drives a Shell/Honda to get the most benefit. This is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
Took us a while to shake off IE monopoly, only to squander it and now we have chromium (and to lesser extend, WebKit) monopoly. It's not as horrible as the IE monopoly yet, but we're currently in the "extend" stage here with Google forcing standard that benefits them and inconveniences their competitors.
I actually witnessed IE's rise, leaving netscape navigator and opera in dust, and then open source phoenix (later firefox) rising from ashes, steadily taking back user share. Google chrome took a good chunk too and by that time IE was done and desperate enough to give in and use chromium framework.
There was a point in time I thought it's impossible, the close source monstrosity with neverending standards incompatibilities will stay on quick launchers forever but it did not. What a journey.
i.e.: The IE approach. Take an open standard (HTML), then fill in the gaps it's missing with proprietary components (ActiveX), wait until your solutions become entrenched, then start doing evil stuff (implementing HTML slightly wrong so that developers have to do extra work to support compliant browsers).
I was struggling to get all the way there initially, but that makes sense. Thanks for actually taking the time to respond!
I doubt that is the plan. The Fediverse is tiny, even after the recent growth. Prior to June it was basically just Mastodon, and I doubt Meta is agile enough to start this from scratch in response to the June growth. This is a lot of effort to take down a competitor that's widely considered to be rough around the edges, and is only just now hitting 2m active monthly users.
Realistically Threads has been in the works for a while as a way to eat Twitter's market share while Twitter destroys itself.
I suspect they see value in the ActivityPub protocol in the same way Yahoo saw value in email in the 90s.Regardless of whether EEE is their intention or not, Meta's presence in the Fediverse is going to have major implications for its long term stability.EDIT: on further reflection, I suspect the value they see is pressuring other would-be competitors to also implement ActivityPub. I suspect they do genuinely want to grow the Fediverse... because doing so would increase the amount of data they could collect and sell from it.
On embrace phase the intention is not malicious, they probably want things to grow. Corporations just in long run will eventually lead to someone asking "how can we capitalize this" and this lead the FOSS part of things to be cut out, and destroying the protocol at that point.
Fediverse should defederate every corporation and just grow naturally.
Please: All read this piece about how "Embrace, extend and destroy" can destroy a federated network. It happened before and they certainly will try to do it with the fediverse.
Big corpos don't want to take it over, they want it gone.
https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
Scary stuff! Fuck google , Microsoft and facebook
Same reason I am highly critical of Jack Dorsey's BlueSky and its attempt at rolling out a separate protocol. The last thing we need is for the Fediverse to be fragmented into a dozen protocols that do things ever-so-slightly differently and prevent network convergence.
Another reason to avoid it is that Jack Dorsey supports known anti-vaxxer and general conspiracy kook Robert F Kennedy Jr. Not the kind of people I'd want to run my social network.
That's bonkers, I don't even see what there is about the man to support. He's just an amalgam of nonsense conspiracies.
My boomer parents unironically think he's the best politician since sliced bread for the last few weeks.
It is very easy to argue that network convergence is NOT a good thing. That's the whole point of the "embrace, extended, destroy" point you responded to.
i steal your formatted post, to post it again. I want visibility for this.
Unpopular opinion but defederating Meta is a terrible idea. What are people thinking will happen? Allow them to federate and you'll have mastodon users able to view and interact with posts from Threads without needing to be concerned about ads or tracking, without giving over any more control of privacy than they would to any other fediverse instance, and without needing to possess accounts homed within the Meta infrastructure.
Defederate them, and anyone who wants to interact with anyone on threads will most likely need to maintain a presence on both and handover more personal data to Meta than they otherwise would.
Defederating is actively hostile to fediverse users.
The idea is that at first threads.net will seem "normal", like all the other fediverses
Then they start adding features that either break against other servers, or straight up aren't supported, making threads.net seem more enticing just because all the neat features aren't on the other sites.
Think how Internet Explorer killed Netscape with all the Page Load errors caused by ActiveX, yet everyone wanted ActiveX sites.
Once they've walked through the path of least resistance and grabbed the bulk of the traffic, they just defederate from everyone.
Yep - best option is to defederate them well before they gain traction & start creating problem by not contributing back to the protocol in a way that benefits everyone.
I think after the community got burned by Microsoft & then google we’re finally learning.
Couldn’t any instance or app do this already? Like #peertube does videos in a way that isn’t necessarily fully federated with #mastodon. We get partial functionality everywhere and some places will have some extra things. If it is popular enough, then add it to the standard and let everyone who wants it add the functionality.
People are concerned about Facebook/Meta trying to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish ActivityPub - if I've understood correctly.
You're acting like there's only two situations: The entire Fediverse defederates with them, or the entire Fediverse federates with them. That's not the case.
I, personally, do not want to interact with anyone using Threads, because Meta has a proven history of poor moderation and of manipulating the narrative for political gain on Facebook and I see no reason to think they won't do the same here. I am not the only one who holds this opinion. Those of us who feel this way can use instances that defederate with them, and have our way.
If you want to interact with them, you can maintain an account on an instance that does federate with them. You do not need to have a Threads account, nor does anyone else.
meta is not here to promote open networks. They will do more harm than good. If you want to learn more about how google achieved it with the XMPP you can read the story here https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html written by one of the core developers.
This is an interesting article, but I don't think it's fair to blame Google for the death of XMPP. Google were the largest consumers of XMPP at one point, sure, but Google was in no way (and never has been) the market leader in communications applications. Google talk came and went, Hangouts came and went and so on. The argument of "When google pulled the plug, XMPP users had to use something else to keep in touch with friends" is equally true of Google messenger users as well. I don't know anyone that ever exclusively used a Google messenger app, now or then.
Google isn't entirely innocent here, they definitely didn't treat the protocol with the respect it deserved, but the development of XMPP was/is fraught with its own problems. I remember setting up an XMPP network for use in a small office as an internal chat tool, it was a nightmare of an experience. Different XMPP Clients had different levels of compatibility with different XMPP servers, many of the clients were just poor overall and the user-experience left a lot to be desired. All we wanted was a simple instant messenger for work, in the days before Slack and Teams. We ended up using OpenFire because it was developed in tandem with Spark, it was basic but worked well for our needs but any time I tried to adopt a different messenger, half the features didn't work.
I don't want to interact with anyone on Threads. It is new and it is Facebook.
Was about to say just that. I'll love to reject people that only follows big corpos.
It isn't the people. It's just if I already decided not to use Facebook or twitter. Why would I get back into bed with the devil on an experimental product?
No worries once threads becomes big enough they will defederate from fediverse /s That sure will be hostile to fediverse users.
I doubt they will defederate from the rest of the fediverse. If they reach a dominant position in the fediverse, they can hide behind the fediverse being open to competition to avoid anti trust actions
Meta joining the fediverse is like Raytheon joining anti-war protests. They are not there for sincere participation.
Maybe, but smart tactics means abusing their current good will and shutting them down when. It runs out.
When Thread finally enable federation, just unleash the Lemmy meme community there. We'll see how fast they roll back the federation feature on their own after their feeds are getting flooded with beans.
Strongly disagree here, better to cast them down now while the chance is there. No mercy or quarter provided to Meta considering their track record.
If anyone is foolish enough to go there, let them, but do not drag us towards them.
Some instances will federate and some will block them. It doesn't have to be all one or the other.
I'm all for federating with them. But give the user the ability to defederate their posts/comments based off their settings. I would rather my information not be supplied to any company owned by Facebook, that's just me.
The information they could get is already public. That’s how Activity Pub works.
Threads is new - unless you meet someone who for some reason only has a threads account, just talk to them elsewhere.
Otherwise, why is it the Fediverse user who has to get the threads account? Tell your people to make an account elsewhere. If you are conscientiously avoiding threads, you're probably the only one in the relationship with a principle boundary to cross in this situation.
that's exactly what I was thinking
They have also already declared that if you federate with them, your instance has to abide by their code of conduct, so they already throwing their weight around.
I think that's essentially true for any instance, though. You don't federate with instances you don't want to.
Lots of naivety here. Big corps only act in their own interest. They view the world in terms of opportunities and threats. Eating Twitter's lunch is an opportunity. The Fediverse is too small to be worth much today, but someday it might grow up and challenge the status quo. That makes it a threat.
While I think I agree we shouldn 't just defederate them. This is for a user to block them. And if you tell users how they can block them, it will maybe take a bit of pressure away from admins to do it.
During the first wave of Twitter refugees , there was a lot of explaining about ignoring and blocking users. Which can never hurt IMHO. Certainly because it can decrease the load on the volunteers that run an instance
This opinion doesn’t seem unpopular to me.
If Meta is running a fediverse instance, they're doing it for money. Sure, I might be able to block Meta-sourced content from reaching me, but that doesn't prevent me-sourced content from reaching Meta - where they can monetize it.
Show me how to do that, and I'm on it like white on rice.
@Nougat It doesn’t prevent them now, as they can just easily crawl all of your posts on here because you are posting on a *public instance*. Defederating from them does nothing to make your public content private.
@ninboy No, it doesn't make my public content private, but it would display my content alongside everything else that a threads user would see, which would make Meta's product more attractive to threads users. Increased threads userbase means increased ad revenue. Speaking of which, I'm now thinking about how content I created, not on a Meta-operated site, would be (as federation by default intends) displayed next to Meta advertising on their instance. My ability to prevent me-sourced content from reaching Meta's instance prevents me-sourced content from displaying next to advertisement I don't want it to be displayed next to.
@Nougat that makes sense, thanks for elaborating on your points. I guess as soon as we put any content out there we can’t prevent screenshots going viral on any context.
@ninboy Sure, you're not going to close that "analog hole," but in a case like that, the audience is aware that the content isn't from the site they're on. Me- (and you- and everyone-)sourced content appearing on a Meta site as though it was Meta content would carry some things to have real concerns about.
Of course, this is all really new(ish), so it's possible that a future internet audience will have a better awareness of how federation works, and bring that understanding with them while they browse. On the other hand, have you seen people?
Tangent: You tagged me in your original reply, which made me wonder why, and if I should do the same thing. Checking your username, I see you're on from mastodon.social, and here I am via kbin.social. I think this is my first real interplatform conversation like that, and I think it's really cool.
Easy peasy!
There is "messages or messages" in the middle, might want to change that.
Where would this be posted or stored to have legal effects?
Is there a text version available for others to copy?
I printed it out and put it on the front door of my house. The castle doctrine means that this is enforced against all internet companies I use in my house.
You make a good point.
Under the Castle Doctrine laws in my state, if Zuckerberg walked into my house without being invited then I could start blastin.
I'll post the legalese mumbo jumbo on my door to keep him out, like he's a vampire.
A different reality.
Neat, but it still means nothing. You're still posting in a public forum. You can copyright or watermark your work, but fair use is a two way street.
I see you're not well versed in bird law.
This is exactly my concern, I don't want my online activity to become another revenue stream for meta. If they can put ads next to our posts then we're back to working for free for the billionaires.
Meta should stay away from fediverse!
Yeah, not a fan of the ominous shadow threads™️ casts. I don't trust them not to flood the fediverse with assorted toxic garbage to push people back towards their walled garden platforms.
The fediverse offers something radical - a new shot at genuine self determination and a socialised, self-governing internet. That shit spells B-A-D N-E-W-S for incumbent platforms (imo) and they're bad actors in general; they wouldn't think twice about smothering anything that threatens their short/long term profits. Who'se going to stop them?
Might be a little bit overly risk concious but goddamn. If I were them, I'd be trying to kill alternative ecosystems before they grew - especially if mine (metas) is both trash to use, and be used by.
Even worse, the Threads app is a privacy nightmare
I bet meta really wants to keep track of people in fediverse
What does "Other Data" even cover? Could be literally anything Meta wants
I bet your DNA profile is part of the "other data". /s
Technically genetic information is covered by 'sensitive info.' I'm not joking.
Please: All read this piece about how "Embrace, extend and destroy" can destroy a federated network. It happened before and they certainly will try to do it with the fediverse.
Big corpos don't want to take it over, they want it gone.
https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
I'm very new here but already feel invested in it's goals and success. We don't need a ton of users or to beat Reddit, etc, we need to be independent and free. Having a slice of the internet not controlled by capitalism is worth fighting for.
I believe things like Threads.net and the Fediverse are fundamentally at odds with each other because the Fediverse is meant to be an alternative not a replacement. No one should be hoping Reddit and others fail because if they do and only the Fediverse was left i believe it would be doomed to become like them.
I feel like avoiding a corporate trap for instant growth for the sake of protecting more sustainable long term growth is still in essence a focus on growth.
I agree with the decision to try and dodge this poison pill, but I disagree on the ideology that we shouldn't try and get as many people on board the fediverse as possible. I want federated social media to have revolutionary power, and you can't have power without leverage.
Thanks for the article. Well worth reading.
Meta is also a threat to the privacy of fediverse users
https://www.wired.com/story/meta-threads-privacy-decentralization/
Lemmy should defederate from threads.net
Same with Kbin. I would honestly go back to reddit sooner than I would accept being smooshed together with Meta.
Otherwise, Meta's groups could become just another Lemmy instance
Meta jumping on the Fediverse bandwagon would kill it one day. It's an EEE strategy. We need to keep them out. Defederate from them.
i'll join the voices saying this is bad for the fediverse, and bad for users in general. there are LOTS of normie users who are joining threads who will be shut off from learning about all the cool other servers if everyone blocks them. this will mean users who want to interact with them need to sign up on Threads, which is what we don't want.
what we want is that users on Threads see other servers, learn that they're better, and migrate over.
don't block Threads, show them how much better we are.
The entire fucking point of fediverse is that corporations can be disconnected when they try to come knocking. You're literally arguing against the reason the platform exists to begin with.
No offense, but I have plenty of ways of interacting with my 'normie' friends that don't involve whoring out my personal data. If someone insists they want to hang out with you but only when they're hosting a Pampered Chef party, they can fuck right off.
999/1000 users won't do any research on how 'this new fb thing' actually works beyond 'where can I sign up'. All they want is a stream of content which the greater fediverse provides free of charge. It is going to be the whole Reddit situation with one more step. Portray yourself as the shining beacon of love and liberty, slowly start creeping in more monetisation and then build a wall once you get big enough. Meta and the overwhelming majority of the user base don't care who is morally 'better'. That's not how capitalism works.
You're missing the bigger picture. If threads is federating with the fediverse, then that means Zuck is downloading and indexing a copy of everyone else's posts OUTSIDE of threads.
Why can't Meta (or any other shady company/ organization) do that now anyway. Just set up an innocent looking server, populate it with a small number of accounts to make it look legitimate, federate and start sucking in data. Do you really think every single federated server is run by people with hearts of gold and pure intentions? Your shit is already getting harvested, there's no stopping that. They don't need Threads if all they want is to index posts.
Meta sucks, I get it, but I think a lot of the fear Threads is generating is way overblown.
They can and probably have already and if not they will.
Someone posted this to make that point clear to everyone and a few people missed the point.
Like data brokers couldn't do that anyway.
This. I'm sure it's already happening. People training LLMs are already pointing their models towards ActivityPub.
Fundimentally none of the data on here is private, it's not designed to be private.
Yeah, if I post something here, I'm posting it because I want other people to see it. That's kinda the whole point of reddit-style social media.
They can see what you post, but not your IP, first name, OS, screen density, headphone volume…. Etc.
And defederating/blocking them won't stop that. This just blocks the consumption of and interaction with threads content. Threads will still be able to see content on those servers. In much the same way that Lemmy.world users can still see beehaw content, despite beehaw defederating.
This is false. When you suspend an instance on Mastodon, it rejects all communication attempts from said suspended server.
Honestly, after literally over 30 years on the internet, I can safely say that this idea of bringing everyone together into one space, that will make both the space and the people better, does not work. Even back in the 90s it affected the signal to noise ratio badly. Now there are significant sets of bad actors, shitposting/meta and general noisy ignorance and hate that can easily, easily drown out any decent signal. It's like a permanent Eternal September.
Think of this like the subject of tolerance - typically criticised that as a philosophy, in that it would thus tolerate the very things that would undermine and destroy it. Rather, it is not a philosophy, but a social contract - if you don't use tolerance yourself, others are not bound to be tolerant of you. Of course, I'm not talking about being tolerant/intolerant here, but using the quality of engagement and participation in a community, as a barometer for whether that user should be engaged in that community.
Some barriers to entry are self-selection for appropriate users, and therefore a good thing - whether through obscurity, level of engagement, education or whatever. Without these, everything gets overrun and crushed. We haven't yet found a good self-moderating system for online communities that provides everyone with a positive and fulfilling experience.
Threads can be Threads. The fediverse can be the fediverse. No-one is forced to choose just one, and trying to force them together is going to crush the fediverse. Lemmy has about 20,000 active users. Threads got 30 million signups in 24 hours.
Just gotta like... make sure they don't echo chamber each other into January 6ing again.
Naw man, don't play games with your abusive ex. Meta can stay over there, we can stay over here. We don't need to talk to each other.
Do you honestly think only the positive, friendly people would hop over? The entire fediverse will be overrun by crazy political conspiracy theories and hostile homophobic/transphobic/anti abortion stuff in no time.
Yup this is dumb and misguided
I really hope the fediverse can block out the meta crap…
There is an anti meta pact. Encourage your instances to sign and follow through. https://fedipact.online/
@downpunxx
This is Microsoft's playbook, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,\_extend,\_and\_extinguish, it was use by Google to kill off XMPP - https://www.disruptivetelephony.com/2013/05/did-google-really-kill-off-all-xmppjabber-support-in-google-hangouts-it-still-seems-to-partially-work.html, now it will be used by Facebook to try to kill the Fediverse.
Why is this not more widely talked about? Please share this.
It's not widely shared because the actual facts of that story don't help the "Facebook will kill activity pub" narrative.
Before Google Talk and Facebook Messenger adopted XMPP it was an extremely niche messaging protocol only used by nerds. After Google Talk and Facebook Messenger dropped XMPP it went back to being a niche messaging protocol used only by nerds.
The standing of XMPP was, if anything, better off after it was abandoned by Google Talk and Facebook Messenger than before those platforms adopted it.
So then for somebody trying to scare monger about Meta, this story doesn't help. It hurts that narrative, and that's why people panicing about Threads aren't talking about XMPP.
Has lemmy.world blocked meta?
As far as I could tell they haven't signed the anti meta pact so probably not.
That site is really bringing me back to my Myspace days
yeah, for real.. wtf is up with that page?
Personality
If personalities were bumper stickers.... this would tell me that they were a 13 year old girl who just learned html.
Or... 'don't take me serious!'
Do you write screeds about the woke mob and women with blue hair too?
It's not normal, you're completely right about that. It doesn't matter. Everything does not have to look like the corporate internet and frankly advocating that everything on the internet wear a suit and tie to be "taken serious" (your words) is something you should re-examine. Spaces with different cultures are good and having a kneejerk reactionary intolerance to them is bad.
I stared too long at it and now my screen looks green -_-'
Spontaneous idea of how to use copyright law for keeping Meta out of the Fediverse (more for fun):
Introduction: Parts of the Fediverse, including Mastodon, are software licensed under the APGL license. This license is a great choice because it forces the ones running the software to grant users access to the source code. GPL for example would allow to run proprietary services based on GPL code. The AGPL does not. Companies like Meta and Google will likely not use AGPL code because it might force them to also publish their proprietary systems behind the scenes. However, this does not help much for keeping the Fediverse save. They simply implement their own software which will not be open source.
Therefore we may need another approach. Defederating is the simplest and in my opinion currently the best. It's easy and keeps people in control.
However, there could be some 'automatic' approach using copyright law. It's a hack which allows to use existing law to regulate the way instances can federate.:
Open question is, who owns the copyright of X?
Haven't you seen what RHEL is doing? Apparently if you're big enough you can just say fuck that. I mean who you gonna answer to? Is anybody really gonna take this all the way up to the supreme court?
No, haven't seen. What is RHEL doing?
I tried to sign up for this junk and it immediately suspended my account at the end of the sign up process for some reason. Now it's demanding my mobile number to appeal it.
Get fucked Zuckerberg you tosser.
Do you really need to import a CSV just to block a single domaine? Sounds over complicated
This is for instance admins rather than users.
This function is designed to allow you to maintain a list of blocked domains rather than just one.
I just won't be apart of any instance that chooses to be federated with Meta. There are many people like me, and I hope kbin and most lemmy instance owners are aware of this.
Is there a way for a Lemmy user to block content from Meta's instance? If so, I'd love to.
So I'm on Threads (occupational hazard, I have Instagram for work) and it's a surreal experience. It's like if everyone you know on Facebook and Twitter joined you on a muted Tumblr overlay. Someone's already @'d Zuck to ask for a "home feed that's just your follows." So... like Mastodon.
exaggerated_eye_roll.wav
get a new job.
Use Threads to preach the benefits of Mastadon, Lemmy, and the Fediverse in general. Spread the good word that if you don't want to be bombarded by ads, manipulated by unscrupulous algorithms, and have your data jealously horded to be sold to who knows then get off Threads and enter the cool kids zone!
Fuck Meta
All my homies hate meta
Fuck the Zuck!
Threads being in the Fediverse is a plus for me, not a negative. It means I could follow regular people and friends who would never in a million years join places like Mastodon or Lemmy while I still get the benefits of being on those platforms, all while being shielded from Meta’s ads and data harvesting. The only issue is I don’t actually believe Zuck will go through with it. They’ll either never federate or severely limit it if they do.
Mastodon themselves have put out a post outlining how this will affect them (it won’t) and how EEE is not a threat. If Meta does eventually opt out of ActivityPub then cool. It’s not like that’s why Mastodon users were there in the first place.
Embrace, extend and destroy is a known, well established, concept. Microsoft was quite open about how this is to be done.
It has already happened to established decentralised networks. See here!
Maybe it won't happen to Mastodon, maybe they have the masterminds who can counter it. But it is imo pretty clear that this is what Meta plans to do.
Read their privacy policy. They already admitted they will scrape info from 3rd party users/communities which interact with their users.
This is not a good thing.
I get why people don’t want anything from Meta around stuff they use. They’re obviously awful. I just don’t think that even 5% of Fediverse users are going to ditch for Threads if Meta defederates. They were here before Meta and I can promise you not a single person on earth is signing up for Mastodon because it will federate with Threads only to have the rug pulled out from under them. This is a small niche community and that will not change with or without Meta. The people that Meta could siphon with EEE are already in their ecosystem.
Mastodon the non-profit is all but compromised.
The guy in charge is essentially in cahoots with Meta and is under an NDA from them.
It doesn’t take more than 2 seconds of thinking to see how empty the words are that Mastodon is not at risk.
3 and 5 will happen in a cascading manner, the more people switch to Threads, the more others will also want to switch.
Number 3 will be difficult since most of the users moving are moving to get away from Meta. I find it hard to believe they'd just jump back into that ecosystem.
A lot of people aren't really ideologically opposed to Meta, they're just on Mastodon since it's there's less friction to use it than Twitter (see rise of Bluesky). Threads will "fix" a lot of issues people have with Mastodon (CW, no algorithm, inability to advertise, instances moving/going under) and they'll move without thinking anything of it since they can still access all of their Mastodon content
Of course the move back isn't going to be as easy, I doubt Meta is going to implement robust account migration, and then the easier choice is to stay on Threads. This is also ignoring the
incompatibilitiesimprovements to ActivityPub that Meta will introduce later on in Meta's lifespan, which will be poorly documented and rapidly changing if they open it up at allEven if many Mastodon users don't switch immediately, this is enough to hamper the long term growth/health of the platform
Did meta anounce that threads will be compatible with mastadon or did miss something.
They previously announced that they would federate with ActivityPub, but yesterday we learned that it won't happen for "three months." With all the European regulatory issues and other factors, I'll bet it will be a lot longer than that. In fact, I'd be surprised if we ever see full federation capability.
Oh, was EU able to block them from joining the fediverse or are they just stalling for some other reason?
They haven't said why. I'm assuming that federation with outside entities would present some logistical problems for them w/r/t their privacy obligations in Europe. If that's right, I suspect the whole ActivityPub thing could be "delayed" indefinitely.
Thanks y'all for explaining. Imo it is a good thing that it is "delayed".
Yep. They said it won't have the activitypub protocol implemented at launch, but it will come soon after, so it can be federated with Mastodon.
My first reaction is this sounds like a great way to onboard more folks into the fediverse - but is this a perhaps a paradox of intolerance? Does Meta as a corporate entity have a natural intolerance to the freeness and openness of the fediverse, and if so, does it need to be violently rejected?
I don't understand why this is even a question. Is the tragedy of the commons not taught in american education? Is Land Clearance(one example of many linked) and Enclosure not taught? (Serious question open to anyone, I do not know what history is taught outside major european countries)
This is essential basic history to understand how land developed from being a collectively worked upon thing, decentralised, owned by everybody that worked on it, into something that was owned by a tiny tiny number of people so that they could exploit it to the maximum degree.
Decentralisation is the creation of a commons. The goal of corporations is centralisation of power and monopoly. They are at complete polar opposites in goals. The entire point of the fediverse in the first place is to destroy the centralised power of web corporations who took what was originally a digital commons populated by thousands of sites and communities and through a form of digital enclosure turned it into a space controlled by a handful of companies.
Learn history other than the popular military shit folks. It is essential in analysing what affects you.
As a product of American eduation, I can say resolutely that no, that was absolutely not taught.
Of course, this is partially because American education sucks and partially because we never HAD common land here: everything was privately owned, after it was stolen from the people who already lived here, and then most of it had people who had no say in the matter enslaved to work on it for the people who stole the land.
Of course, this is ALSO not really taught, because it'd make people feel sad and make the US look kinda bad, so it's always talked about but you get like, a week of coverage on both subjects, at most.
It saddens me to hear that kids in the US don't learn about the fuckups of their ancestors, as this might "upset" them. My kids here in Germany learn about the Holocaust and they take trips to concentration camps so they learn about the past. Not to guilt them or shame them, but to teach them, so history doesn't repeat itself. (And we're not even native Germans, we're east European immigrants.)
The problem here is conservatives call learning about our past mistakes "woke" and do everything in their power to remove this curriculum from our schools. For some reason, they look at it as "trying to destroy our great nation and traditional values" instead of "learning from our past to be a better country going forward."
Except military, which they teach A LOT, we spent maybe 5 days on the crimes we committed against Native Americans, but an entire month or more on the Revolutionary War. Hell, we spent longer on learning about "world religions" than we did all our mistakes. Plus, any WW1/WW2 war crimes committed by our side is not taught whatsoever.
Nationalism is a disease.
I'm probably going to get mega canceled here but I think a good portion of it is that the Holocaust is history.
A lot of what we don't talk about is how we treated the Native Americans because we're STILL shitting on them from on high. For example, the Dakota Access Pipeline is the same old shit, different century.
Also talking about how we've treated people of color, and any discussion around chattel slavery, ends up being "uncomfortable" because an awful lot of people in this country don't seem to see any problem with it and would be perfectly happy if we could toss out the civil rights acts and go back to having separate water fountains.
TLDR: it's 'history' in Germany because ya'll arrest people giving nazi salutes, but in the US wearing a KKK robe is "free speech".
Agreed. American history is terribly white-washed.
Basically some dudes came over from England, Indians cooked them corn and turkey and everyone was happy. A few years later their descendants got mad at England, dressed up as the Indians and threw tea off a boat. Some shots were fired but we settled down over a piece of paper that guarantees freedom and guns for all.
Later you might learn that “all” means white land-owning males but eventually that got expanded and now we are al happy in the greatest country in the world (yes, that part is also taught), and every morning for 180 days of the year for 13 straight years we stand up and recite a poem about how much we love our country.
Maybe it’s changing, idk. I graduated the public school system 20 years ago. My kindergartener came home a few months ago saying he watched a video on MLK Jr in his class where they talked about his assassination. I thought that was a bit dark to go to in kindergarten but at least it’s talked about, even somewhat.
It’s all but against the law in Florida (maybe other states as well?) to teach that aspect of history. Wouldn’t want the white kids to feel guilty for being white… because they know about things that happened in the past.
From what I've seen, irregardless threads/there version on the fediverse is going to scrape any and all instances also on the fediverse. Blocking them wont necessarily help with any of this, but maybe if even communities do they wont have enough content to make it profitable? Maybe I'm naive. Well, I know I am, but any way to stick it to the man is a good idea in my book.
Although the scraping would happen either way, and if they really felt like it, they could just spool up their own private instance to do some scraping that way instead, even without tying it into Threads.
The goal short term isn't to be profitable though. The goal is to pull enough users so they can effectively stunt the growth of 'competition'.
For kbin users to unilaterally block content from threads:
The only drawback is that it will only start working after the first piece of content from threads.net has been shared on your instance - for now it returns a 404 not found.
Edit: Mileage may vary, depending on how Threads solves its fediverse integration.
Thanks! Keeping this open so i can do it later.
Getting a 404 error, but might just be due to kbin upgrades, etc.
Does /d/ block an instance?
I think there is a misunderstanding in the kbin community.
/d/ blocks a domain, A domain is not an instance.
But i'm not shure what /d/ blocks or not. As fas as I know it's what's between the bracket's after a post ()
Does anyone know if kbin.social will even federate to begin with?
You are a hero among men
I'm not worried at all about Zuck taking over Mastodon at all, they'll try but they are just so incompetent, because literally every single product idea they have they either stole or bought from somebody else. Great tech, terrible products, zero originality is the Facebook mantra and that is because they have a delusional CEO that they can't fire, because Zuck has delude himself into thinking he's an "ideas" guy like Jobs instead of an "executions" guy like Bezos that he really is, and until he realizes that, he will always fail.
(also, delusional for actually thinking Ready Player One is a good book)
If making a TikTok clone didn't get people to switch from TikTok, why would they think making a Twitter clone is going to get people to switch from Twitter?
The only way I see Facebook being a threat is when they give up on making their Twitter clone and start providing easy subscription service hosting for Mastodon/Lemmy to EEE. THAT would be the time to worry.
While you may dismiss Zuckerberg as delusional, he's shown a talent for using others' ideas and making them profitable under Facebook. The success of Instagram and WhatsApp is proof. Google+ is nowhere to be seen anymore.
As for Mastodon, underestimating Meta's potential threat, particularly federating with Mastodon (this can be seen as "easy hosting" of something like Mastodon), might be a mistake. Even without originality, they have the resources to cause significant disruption.
I feel like we are seeing lots of these tech companies just clawing at new innovations for profit cause they can't seem to run a stable business otherwise without fucking things up somehow. See the the crypto/nft boom, AI and it's rapid and still somewhat untested and shoddy implementation, etc. We've got strikes popping up in the US as the months go on cause people are definitely feeling the shittification of things in multiple industries including tech and entertainment as of late.
Everything tech companies like meta have been doing in the last several years is looking for their next growth fix to keep their investors happy while running their business like a toddler between sweets.
Elon happened to set Twitter on fire, Instagram is failing to beat TikTok in short form content or even competing with things like YouTube, Facebook itself has been shriveling up over the years, now there's some cool new tech space in the Fediverse and no corporates taking advantage of it - probably looks like early crypto to Zuck if he can swoop in and outpace the open source projects with enough funding.
Like George Costanza's member in the swimming pool.
Threads is not an all an idea but an execution. Twitter abandoned it's value proposition of nobodies being able to shit post non-billionaire elites and threads just relaunched that concept. Way different situation than trying to compete with TikTok since Twitter set itself on fire and made itself unfashionable. Nobody needs to innovate the next Twitter they just need to replace what Twitter took away. The fediverse itself would still seem to service a different demographic from that since shit posting celebs is all normies ever wanted from that platform.
I think that an important part of twitter was the proximity to power through politicians, journalists and celebrities. If threads is good at making those people switch over, then I think a lot of other people will switch over as well. On big part of twitter users is people who love discussing the news and current events and that's much more appealing when you can do it on the same platform as people who are in the news or write the news.
(On the other hand lemmy has Margot Robbie so maybe we're in the race as well?)
Does Meta entering the Fediverse mean that they'll federate with Lemmy instances or just Mastodon instances?
If they do both-ways federation (I've heard rumors of it being one-way only) it should theoretically be both Lemmy and Mastodon, but it will work better with Mastodon because they're both for the same purpose (i.e. Twitter-like apps).
Most of the larger Mastodon and Lemmy instances have defederated threads dot net.
You're correct, I was moreso referring to federation in general.
Bear in mind that this blocks you from seeing Threads posts on your profile. Unless you private your profile, this changes nothing as far as what they're able to see/pull from your account. Their official documentation states that the block only prevents users from seeing or retrieving content from those servers. You'd probably have to be performing some DNS-level filtering on incoming requests or web firewalling from the host level to prevent their incoming requests.
Sure hope they get defederated at least.
That's just the "block" function from the moderation section of Mastodon. Again, this won't prevent them from accessing your profile. It only stops people on your instance from being able to see anything from that domain. The only way to stop them from getting access to anything posted to your profile is by going private.
If I can dig up the now closed Issue on Mastodon's GitHub, I'll post it in an edit. Main devs confirmed this is how blocking servers and "federation" is designed to operate.
Wait, if I understand it right, Mastodon can't defederated with an instance? As in, I don't want to provide my content for the instance?
Lemmy can do that, right? Because if not, then the whole idea is just a goldmine of free content to milk for corporations, that they don't even have to pay for hosting. And I'm extremely against giving someone a way how to monetize my content under such circumstances. (Aside from the analog hole, you can't stop bots scraping it, but that's at least some effort they have to do...)
What's to stop that corporation from using private browsing to scrape that content anyway? Sure they don't have as much of a way to identify and link their ad profiles to other users, but if it's pure content they're after, unless a home server is completely siloed from the rest of the world and aggressively defends against that kind of scraping activity, that can't be stopped. That's the argument the Mastodon devs made.
Can't you get banned from Threads? What happens when someone posts content on a Fediverse server that isn't supposed to be allowed on Threads? Porn, for example.
I assume so, yeah. That pins on Meta's moderation doing its job. I'm talking the other direction, though - Threads/Meta scraping your data from your Mastodon account.
Didn't know that Threads is compatible with Mastodon. So they use the same protocol?
not currently but it will. fediverse integration is coming soon
Oh and will it be fully fediverse? It is connected with instagram account which centralized
that connection is temporary as well. I'm guessing it's rushed because they wanted to take advantage of the twitter situation
Let see what will they do
yup, it uses same ActivityPub protocol.
According to Meta, they have plans to integrate ActivityPub into Threads some time soon, meaning they would be able to federate with Mastodon, Calckey, Misskey, Pleroma, Lemmy, Friendica, etc.
But hopefully that means any given lemmy instance could un-federate from it, right?
Yes- but it’s up to your instance admin to do that
Why wouldn't I just do this?
I'm just gonna bully the shit out of them, like the blue checkers on twitter.
Sign up for a real instance, fucking nerds.
threads will never federate.
What I heard some people said about the fediverse was that before email was controlled by big corporations you can host your own email and no issues. Nowadays its much harder for a regular person to do this because big corporations took control of the federated email. So to my understanding even this social networks are in danger of the same thing happening. Please anyone correct me if I am wrong.
You are. It's just as easy now to host your own mail server as it was thirty years ago
Hosting mail is easy, not getting hit by spam filters is the difficult part
Is there a way to block meta in lemmy? Im in the lemmy.world instance, or is it up to the developers and maintainers of each lemmy instance?
The maintainers of the instance can defederate, or you can block in your settings, but that’s only a personal level. I’m not sure the community name to block though
How likely is a federated threads going to be used to harvest data for whatever advertising or AI purpose meta has?
Aside from ensuring their launch product has immediate content, the only reason meta would do this is for that $$.
That said, it could be a symbiotic relationship with instances who's users aren't super worried about that & find value from the addtl content it will surely bring.
There's nothing stopping them from harvesting data with or without Threads. They can just create their own hidden Lemmy, Mastadon servers and pull all the data that way. Sure, someone could catch on and block that server, but they could just spin more up wherever.
This is the main concern.
I create Threads. It gets 30 million users very quickly. Lemmy users only make up say, 1 million users.
I make changes to Threads that don't follow the ActivityPub protocol to the T, this makes the Lemmy servers glitchy when interacting with Threads content until Lemmy can be patched, but I'll just keep making these changes to Threads over and over.
User A likes Lemmy, but it's really starting to glitch out all the time. They have a lot of friends they interact with on Threads and because Lemmy has so many issues they say fuck it, hop over to Threads so they can consistently keep up with their friends/community.
Sure, its a symbiotic relationship for the people who “aren’t super worried” about it, until metas platform becomes big enough to defederate with the rest of the fediverse, taking all of its users and content with it, and leaving you on an empty network because everyone you know “just uses the meta instance”…
I'm just hoping it's a massive failure just like the metaverse. I wish no success for the Zuck fuck in any of his endeavors.
Tbh it’s far more likely they’ll implement extensions to activitypub that are specific only to threads & make activitypub users want them - but can’t have them - this peeling off users for them vs a slower moving, free & collaborative platform.
Imho to avoid a Google loves XMPP (they pretty well killed it) situation ActivityPub servers need to largely block Threads completely or face being extinguished in much the same way as XMPP. Don’t give them a foothold & don’t trust that a private entity like Meta will play nice, they aren’t joining to be a peer, they’re joining to either take it over or kill the competition.
I mean, how is a bot not already crawling through public sites like Lemmy and Mastodon for the purposes of AI training? Federated or unfederated, if you are providing social media services that data you have is already out there.
Neat trick.
_... longing look across from Lemmy. _
I 'member XMPP
I really don’t have a problem with Meta creating a federated social media. I feel like it’s a benefit to the fediverse overall.
Someone want to explain how to get followers on there? Feel like posting to the wind on that site?
it's really hard right now if you don't have followers on insta / twitter already. it's gonna be easier once they add post search and more features
So we're all pro federation and decentralization, until we aren't... I think this is a very preemptive and paranoid measure, but thankfully it will work out just as the technology was built for, some will block, some wont, everyone will make their choice, and be happy in their corner of the internet.
That's disingenuous. It's not like Meta is some unknown party here with a clean reputation. They have a history, one that repeatedly shows they couldn't care less for the fundamental freedoms of the fediverse. Just like in society, for us to build free platforms where everyone is welcome, we must paradoxically not tolerate those that wish to wield the freedom of the platform against itself.
Ever heard of Mastodon blocklists? I mean defederation has been happening for a while.
But I think that's fine. Instances should have every right to block instances that they disagree with.
Except Meta by it's nature will aim towards Centralization. They're contradictive to the concept. It doesn't even take much thought to see the issue here.
Also as app_priori pointed out, Almost every instance already has a list of defederated instances.
This is like starting to date a known habitual cheater
Wait, their server is online already?
@downpunxx
This is Microsoft's playbook, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,\_extend,\_and\_extinguish, it was use by Google to kill off XMPP - https://www.disruptivetelephony.com/2013/05/did-google-really-kill-off-all-xmppjabber-support-in-google-hangouts-it-still-seems-to-partially-work.html, now it will be used by Facebook to try to kill the Fediverse.
Why is this not more widely talked about? Please share this.
Thanks!