Meta in particular has a specific record of social manipulation, which is why I think defederating them specifically is so important. Even if we collectively have mixed feelings on corporate instances in general, social media companies, especially those like Facebook, have a specific and direct record of manipulating people and the population nya. Facebook/Meta in particular, is probably the worst of any of them.

Literal fascist rhetoric. Seriously wtf.

This is an awesome victory for fast food workers and unions. People constantly shit on the folks working in customer service and kitchen jobs, but they are often gruelling and unpleasant. The people there certainly deserve it more than the CEOs and shareholders exploiting them (I mean, I'm against the entire structure, but if we're working within that structure, then ye ^.^).

I get very frustrated with the people who side with the govt here because it was a 7 month foetus. Just because it is 7 months rather than 5 or 6 doesn't suddenly mean the government should be able to coerce the use of someone's body as an incubator against their will.

Feels like people just don't give a shit about bodily autonomy and such :/ nya

Yet another vitally important front in the war on general purpose computing (it's a short and important read imo)

Fuck Google, and fuck DRM.

"Gender updates" is the best term i've heard for transitioning in a while. I'm stealing it now, the bigots can't have it. 󰱫

(also note for anyone reading: the term "tankie" refers to people who embrace authoritarianism and usually specific self-declared "socialist" states repressing civilians, often modern day states that don't even pretend to be socialist like Russia, or the CCP, or North Korea/DPRK, or even just any nation considered "anti-West" regardless of their behaviour or internal political structure x.x

It started when parts of the Communist Party of Great Britain split off from the main party because the main party supported the USSR crushing (with tanks) Hungarian socialists trying to break off from the USSR, for a number of reasons - others were involved too, but the worker councils themselves were major parts of the uprising - see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956 - there were attempts at worker council parlimentary democracy and such, as well as attempts for direct-democracy ^.^

The most recent Tankie Thing is supporting Russia for invading Ukraine, or doing weird enlightened-centrism on it because the USA gives support to Ukraine. More broadly, tankies generally seem to act as if any act by another country is always less bad than the USA, and that only the USA can be imperialist, or various variations on this concept >.<.

It should be noted that the right wing have started to some degree calling all leftists tankies and IMO anyone should reject this attempted co-option of the word because it allows people to falsely conflate leftism with tankie ideologies, even though they are often a small minority in IRL leftist activism, with more common groups being anarchists, democratic socialists, some Marxists (even some Marxist-Leninists, which itself is a controversial term tbh), various libertarian socialisms and communisms, and the odd further-left social democrat ^.^)

The post is too big for my next edit, so here is the next edit in a comment:

Edit 2 - Clarification, Expanding on Facebook's Behaviour, Discussion of Admin-FB Meetups

I want to clarify the specific dangers of Meta/FB, as well as some terminology.

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, and Embrace, Extend, Consume

The link I posted approximately explains EEE, but in this thread I've used the phrase "Embrace, Extend, Consume", to illustrate a slightly modified form of this behaviour.

Embrace, Extend, Consume is like Embrace, Extend, Extinguish except the end goal isn’t complete annihilation of the target. Instead of defederating at the endpoint, Meta/FB just dominates the entire standard, and anyone who steps out of line is forced into a miniscule network of others.

They can then use this dominant position to buy out or consume large instances, or for example, force data collection features into the standard and aggressively defederate anyone else who doesn’t comply >.< - because they're so big, most instances will comply in the service of "content".

Such a dominant position can even be obtained simply by sheer user mass, which Threads already has to some degree, as long as the relevant instance has large amounts of financial resources to buy out instances.

In this way, they consume the network entirely, which doesn’t necessarily destroy the communities but essentially Borg-ifies them and renders people unable to leave their grasp.

Facebook/Meta-Specific Threats: Information Warfare & Manipulation

One of the major specific threats of Meta/FB in particular is their long and continued history of engaging in what essentially amounts to large-scale psychological manipulation and information warfare towards it's various goals (money, total domination of human communication, subsuming the internet in countries where the infrastructure is still too small to resist a single corporation restricting it's content, political manipulation, collection of ever more data, etc.), against both it's users and non-users.

They have well over a decade of experience in this, hundreds of times more users than us (providing good cloaking for astroturfers), and untold amounts of labour, research and other resources have been poured specifically into figuring out the most effective ways to manipulate social groups via techniques like astroturfing, algorithmic prioritization, and more sophisticated strategies I am not aware of. All backed by data from literally billions of human beings >.<

This means that exposing the Fediverse to Facebook/Meta is essentially exposing us all to one of the most organised and sophisticated information warfare machines that has ever been created. Cutting off the connections immediately (as in the other analogy by @BreakingBad@lemmy.world) not only protects from direct EEE/EEC, but also makes it harder for Meta/Facebook to influence, dominate, and consume the conversation here, either by sheer user-mass, or by malicious information warfare (or even unintentional consequences of their algorithms), or by a combination of all of these.

We know they are extremely malicious and willing to use these methods towards real-life, ultra-harmful ends. Examples are at the start of this post :)

For hypothetical examples on how this might work - in reality it might be different in the specifics (these are just illustrative):

• Meta/FB could start a campaign (maybe astroturfed) for "user safety", where they encourage people to distrust users from smaller instances or any user with their instance address marker not on @threads.<whatever their url>
• Meta/FB could add "secure messaging" (lol, it's facebook), but only between threads users. Then they could push the idea that ActivityPub is bad for privacy (the DMs are, but just use Matrix ;p - if you post stuff publicly, it makes sense that it's public).
• Meta/FB could by simple user mass result in most communities being on Threads. People tend to drift towards more populous communities about the same topic, in general, and Threads unbalances the user ratios so much that everyone would just go to those >.< (as opposed to right now, where we have similar sized communities on several large instances, where most people subscribe to most of them)
• Meta/FB could use social engineering to push for changes to the ActivityPub protocol that are harder for other ActivityPub servers to implement ^.^, or even ones that are hard for non-proprietary clients to implement. For example, embedding DRM in the protocol or something like that.
• Meta's algorithms could over time shift towards deprioritising non-"paid"/"verified" Threads users.
• It's already been explained how the app as we know it essentially makes it hard for people to leave due to the fact only they have access to their server software and they also ensure that the app is only a specific client for this service.

Instance Admins, and the "Friendliness" of Meta

Some instance admins have been in contact with Meta/FB. It does make sense for at least some of them to do "due dilligence", but I've seen in at least one post a comment on the friendliness and cooperativeness of the engineers and the fact they mostly discussed architectural concerns and stuff like moderation and technical stuff.

I want to remind instance admins that no matter how nice the engineers are - and how much they share your interests - they are still working for what is essentially a mass information warfare machine. This doesn't make them malicious at all, but it does mean that what they are doing is not a solid perspective on the actual goals and attitude of Meta/Facebook, The Corporate Assimilator Organism.

Regardless of what they have discussed, they are obligated as employees to act on Meta's orders, not the things they actually want to work on or the things both them and you find important ^.^ - or even act towards the goals they want to act towards when Meta inevitably goes for the throat.

I encourage instance admins to keep this in mind, and further keep in mind that Meta is pretty much royalty when it comes to social stuff and how to appeal to people. If they were trying to appeal to a more corporate social media service, they'd probably have gone with sending in the C-suite, but they know this community is technically inclined and less likely to buy into corpo speak and corpo bullcrap, so they probably hooked you up with all the chill engineers instead :).

Reiterating my view: Resist Corpo-Assimilation!

Note on This Post

I've realised this post would probably be most useful if the primary targets of Threads could see it (Mastodon). But I don't have Mastodon cus I really am not into microblogging myself, so RIP ;p

"Yale Police Benevolent Association" is such a dystopian name. Real "Ministry of Truth" vibes :/

Say you're a control freak without saying you're a control freak 🤣

I really want to know the AI prompt used to make this :p

My point is that defederation is our defense against corporate interests. And Facebook isn't just "a corporation", it's specifically a known hostile actor with massive experience in social manipulation. It's not a perfect defense, but you don't resist corporate subsumation by letting them straight through the door.

New surveillance capitalism just dropped.

Power being priced negative is awesome. We need more of it imo, make energy so abundant that it makes processes that were previously too energy-intensive viable, and enables a massive increase in both residential and grid storage capacity.

My opinion is that Na-ion batteries are the way for bulk grid storage and apartment/home storage nya.

They use hyper abundant materials and are now reaching the point of decent endurance, and if you arent bothered by them being heavy (as is the case for grid and residential storage), they're fairly comparable to Li-Ion without the usage of relatively rare Lithium.

lol you really think I just parrot the US state department. Honestly this is another thing with tankies, they seem to be incapable of conceiving of geopolitics more complex than "arm of the USA" or "not arm of the USA".

The idea of only partial-alignment even among nominal allies, and complex conflicting geopolitical interests, and the idea of spectrums and complexity beyond "US=bad" "not US=good" is foreign to them, or even criticizing actions of organizations rather than just deciding XYZ organization is evil or good and retroactively justifying or opposing every action they take (let alone consider that an action could have mixed consequences or ethics, both positive or negative ;p).

For example, I am still capable of criticising Ukraine's actions (for example like using cluster bombs, even if last I saw Russia used them first I still am not in favour of them) and the propaganda they produce, or worrying about the effects of the significant debt on Ukrainians and their public services in the form of disaster capitalism, or also generally expressing my issue with States as a whole while still opposing brazen imperialism by Russia ^.^, or criticising the dehumanisation of Russian people in some of the conversations I've seen (especially the people who left Russia, when those are the people least likely to support the Russian Government's actions and are often fleeing persecution themselves e.g. queer Russians).

I just don't usually specifically say these things because in practise the conversations in which it comes up are already horrifically derailed by apologia for Russia's actions and enlightened-centrism, so expressing the nuance is completely useless because the people I'm responding to just hate anything they associate with "the West" (which itself is not necessarily a fully coherent concept) and usually massively whitewash the shit going on in Russia, both about Ukraine and also other things <.<

Point being, Threads doesn't need any other communities. People using Threads are those people who have never used reddit, and never would have signed up for lemmy. These people are also the same ones who don't care about if their content is coming from a federated source, or just Threads.

And hence, defederation is a good idea.

Defederation is to protect us from them. You are absolutely right that they aren't comparable to beehaw in size - now imagine if people here start joining the communities on Threads (not formal ones cus threads doesn't have those), and we later decide to defederate, as some have proposed? Beehaw alone caused a massive clusterfuck, now imagine an instance with 10000x more users and power and concentrated community being let in?

This is nothing less than a brazen attempt at total control of the primary large-scale communication mechanism of humanity.

Fuck this bioessentialist piece of trash.

I don't believe in any god, but even if I did I would not think such an entity had any right to dictate or make judgements on who I am and how I am, or my identity or purpose.

I'm so goddamn sick of this bullshit. I get to decide who I am and set my own path, fuck these people who think they get to tell me (and everyone else) what my life and body and purpose and identity are >:(

Really, I can't even begin to describe how much I hate this sort of patronising bullshit, how many of us have to suffer or die because of the relentless repressive normativity imposed by these groups and their infantilising ideologies of self repression and obedience and compliance, especially with the "dignity" and "diversity" doublespeak they've been trying to use in the past few months even while they systematically try to erase those very same things from anyone who doesn't fit into their suffocatingly binary and restricted conceptualisation of identity nya.

Our biology, identity and lives should be ours to control. We are capable of deciding our goals and purposes. I frankly hope more people realise they don't need some patronising religious institution to tell them how they should exist or what their purpose should be (if any, some folks are more nihilistic), and seize their morphological autonomy and decision making from groups that would deny it to them under the guise of such bullshit as supposed "dignity" ^.^

Seriously, fuck this. The Catholic Church (and this """cool""" pope), as well as pretty much all the other organised religious institutions who propagate the same infantilising and self-subjugating rhetoric, can go fuck themselves with a cactus in every available hole.

Absolutely never.

Capitalism moment 💀;p

If we defederate, they can technically pull our content because it's public, but it's difficult, and their users won't be able to interact with it.

We would not be able to see theirs unless you manually went to their site.

Right now, they still haven't turned federation on, so we can't do that. If we do federate, we will be able to (easily) see and interact with their content, and they will be able to (easily) see and interact with our content. If we defederate, we can technically see each other's content by visiting their site (or them visiting ours), but we wouldn't be able to usefully interact with them and vice-versa without making an account on their site (or vice-versa) ^.^

I hope not. Not a big fan of propriety AI (local AI all the way, and I hope people leak all these models, both code and weights), but fuck copyright and fuck capitalism which makes automation seem like a bad thing when it shouldn't be ;p nya

The soviet union was authoritarian state capitalist (as opposed to market-capitalist). It just called itself communist, even though the Soviets (worker's councils) were suborned to the party very rapidly.

Can't believe I forgot about that....

Too much shut going on. Honestly I hope those people are ok :(

Building a government list of members of a minority group. What could possibly go wrong...

We need i2p or veilid torrents ASAP, to protect uploaders and downloaders. One of the main reasons people don't seed is the threat of lawsuits.

Promoting anarchist ideas! The horror! (/s)

Did you read any of my arguments?

Absolutely based af :)

I agree with not tolerating tankies.

This seems a little.... dramatic, however. Please take care of yourself - I know how drama can be and if you are anything like me the urge to reply ASAP can cause anxiety and stress and taking time to breathe may be helpful. Especially with tankies and a more general variety of internet folks who can make people feel the need to constantly watch anything you say cus they tend to pick up on some tiny thing and run with it or engage in bad faith :/ nya

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Coming_War_on_General_Computation

This seems like a relevant read (I'm a big fan of this speech/essay ;p). It makes this point more generally about how General Computation is fundamentally different from a lot of other aspects of regulation but politicians do not understand this so well >.<

nyaaa :3

He should be the next gender-neutral biohazardous waste dump, simple piss and shit is not enough! nya

Common Interest Algorithm

The weighting system indicates how much interest (or avoidance) an instance has for a topic as specified by the subject tree. The value of weight for each subject tree should be a value from -1 -> 1 (inclusive), and applies to the deep-most component of the tree. We'll call this the sentiment of the instance towards that specific level of the tree.

The common interest algorithm specifies a rough way to estimate how "aligned" in sentiment a given pair of entities are using an incomplete collection of nested topic paths ^.^ and then using heuristics to fill in the "gaps" needed for direct comparison. It takes the partially specified trees - along with estimated polarisabilities - from federated instances, combines them together, then uses that to "complete" the sentiment weights specified by users and instances so they can be directly compared to determine the common interests of each to contribute to directing users to instances correct for them.

The default option should be that users are assumed to want "general sentiment/general topic/root topic" instances (i.e. with path /), and then they can specify much more refined interests using various methods, like taking search terms and using the collected known topics for them in various languages to construct a user-friendly search function based off the common interest algorithm heuristic, or allowing direct specification of interests, for more advanced users ^.^.

The full (but slightly incomplete) details of my approximate proposed Common Interest Algorithm are in this gitlab snippet, written in poorly-organised Rust code.

Tagging the Willingness for New Users

Different instances have a different level of desire (and gatekeeping) for new users.

Some don't allow any new users at all. Others require filling out a form and waiting for approval. Many require an email or captcha, and some don't require anything whatsoever.

Some don't want any new users, some do accept new users but only can handle a small number, and others are free-for-all open registration.

Many users will want the ability to create communities without needing to seek approval. For defaults on the "maximum" level of "inconvenience" an instance presenting other instances should show to the user, it makes sense for an instance to use it's own level of "inconvenience".

nodeinfo2 (also see here for all keys) already exists to provide some basic information, but it's not enough for this feature ;p

As such, I suggest we instead construct a property on the main server actor, for now called instance_onboarding_meta. This is an object of the form:

{
    "accepting_new_users": bool, // if this is false, no other references need be present
    "capacity_used": float (>= 0), // Must be present, represents one-minus the remaining amount of users it can take as a fraction of total estimated capacity. Alternatively, represents an approximate fraction of resource usage. If it's >1, this implies the server is over-capacity.
     "preferred_max_users": integer (>= 0), // If present, represents the approximate maximum number of users this instance wants to host. If unset, assume unlimited but perform estimates based on the fraction. 
    "signup_requirements": {
          "captcha",
          "email",
          "approval",
     }, // Must be present, a list of the signup requirements. May need more options as new authentication and validation mechanisms are added to the various Fedi servers ^.^
     "signup_uri": "https://example.com/signup/finalized" // "final" signup page, rather than one providing alternate instance suggestions. Should take e.g. a `?username=<new username>` parameter.
}

Instance Signup Redirection Algorithm

Now that a system has been proposed for giving instances to describe how much effort it takes to sign up, how much they can really take new users, and what kind of community they're interested in, we can use this data to construct a method to split signup across the fediverse.

We'll describe things in terms of what happens either as the list of instance values is changed while they are polled, or finally what happens when a user actually looks for an instance ^.^. Though, a lot of the ideas are also mentioned in the Common Interest Algorithm Snippet, which also at least partially discusses some other things.

Step 1 - Candidate Instance Collation

The first step is to collate information about potential candidate instances, by making requests to the endpoints described above to instances the current instance is federated with - including itself! (it might be useful to combine all the metadata into one endpoint as well, but that's all bikeshedding):

• instance_software - the software of each instance
• instance_focus - the list of weighted subject-trees that indicate what the community is oriented around - see the algorithm snippet for efficiently merging in information from instances without having to recalculate the full weights every time, via use of BTrees/BTreeMap.
• instance_onboarding_meta - Information about how the instance accepts new users, and it's resources to do so.

Instances shouldn't poll this very frequently - certainly not on every attempted user signup! - and instead should cache it and poll periodically (say, every hour or so ^.^). This avoids slamming large portions of the network.

Step 2 - Software Filtering

The next step is filtering out candidate instances running different fediverse software than ourselves.

Step 3 - User Acceptance Filtering & Weighting

Our instance should then filter out instances that aren't accepting users, and perform the following steps to assign weights to instances (may be configurable if the user is ok with accepting more effort than our instance requires - as most users are likely to use the default settings it should be cached too):

• For each instance, if it requires more things to sign up (email when we don't need it, etc.), then remove it from the list.

  For captcha, mark that instance with a "0.5" weight multiplier rather than eliminating it, if we don't also require captcha.

  From a user-configurability perspective, each possible requirement to signing up can either:

  • Eliminate from the list (a user doesn't want to deal with forms) - this is the default for things required by another instance that aren't required by ours, except captcha
  • Reduce it's chance of selection (as in captcha) - this is the default for instances if the respective instance has captcha but the current instance doesn't.
  • Have no effect - this is the default if we also have a requirement.

• For each instance, if it has a preferred max user count, then calculate the current approximate user count by multiplying it by the resource usage capacity.

  Then, calculate the approximate available user slots by subtracting the approximate user count from the preferred maximum. Note that this value may be negative in the case of an overloaded server.

• Find the instance with the largest preferred max user count (if none exists, then use the current server's user count instead, though remember that if your server does have such a preferred max count, it should be in the list). If any server has an estimated total user slots consumed greater than the maximum preferred user count, use this instead.

  Then, assume that the preferred maximum for servers with no specified maximum is approximately 2x that value. Calculate the approximate available user slots of instances without an existing preferred maximum, using this estimate in combination with the resource consumption fractions.

• For any instance with available user slots <0 - that is, overloaded servers - divide those (negative) available user slots by some value such as 4.

  If any instance has a negative number of available user slots, add the most-negative number back on to every instance's count of available user slots, so that the smallest value is zero.

  The division by 4 (or some other number) means that all overloaded servers are avoided more than they would be if we just added the most-negative value back directly.

• Assign weights to each instance depending on their proportion of available user slots compared to the total. If the instance has already been tagged by a weight (from e.g. having captcha), then multiply by that weight.

PART 3

I think one of the ways we could combat as well as defederating them from instances is provide such a good user experience to consume content on the fediverse that threads - or whatever else - becomes just a shittier, ad-ridden version of what we use.

Look at Reddit for example, if they didn’t have the power to remove our access to APIs, third party apps would still provide the best experience. Can any of the features Reddit provides that third party apps don’t justify the number of ads thrown in your face? Nope.

I certainly am not against improving the UI, but at the current scale of the Fediverse we don't have anywhere near the resources to compete directly with Facebook/Meta. It's too early. The primary defense must be defederating.

Making our UI advancements in a way that a corporation cannot - for instance, exploiting their need for advertising to make sure we have better experiences - is a good strategy in the long term. But it is a secondary strategy to immediate defederation ^.^, because Facebook is only at the start of the enshittification process for Threads and hence they won't be pumping it full of ads and their engineers can focus on having a "better" experience in the short term until they destroy us.

Same here, if we focus on improving the experience of a Lemmy or kbin user and ignore whatever meta is doing, nothing is stopping us from becoming just the better way of consuming all fediverse content. Then if threads were to drop federation, we would still have the upper hand.

The only thing that might hurt us in the end is if we start giving in and host communities on their instance. But if we don’t, and keep our ground, we can have the best of both worlds. See their content without their ads, and keep control of our own content, without their rules.

You can't have the best of both worlds, unfortunately. By exposing Fedi users to Meta/Facebook content, we expose ourselves to a company that has a long and continuing history of social manipulation and is able to pressure us to host communities on Threads - even if it's only done by sheer mass of users.

By letting them in, we've already almost lost. Whether by direct EEE, or by simple user agglomeration onto primarily-Threads communities, or by a deliberate campaign by Meta/Facebook, they will eventually try and gain direct control of the network.

My opinion is that the only useful response to an organisation that is openly known for direct deception and manipulation and attempting to assimilate existing networks (like e.g. what happened to Instagram and Whatsapp and XMPP, and probably others I'm not specifically aware of) is outright rejection.

Luckily, it is possible to shield the power supply from a carrington event at least, and we do have satellites keeping watch. The main issue is making sure all the power infrastructure is actually shielded, which costs money >.<

Its a bit if an issue with the rust ecosystem in general tbh. Wish more stuff was copyleft >.<

Given some of the naive stuff I've seen from some of the mastodon community leaders, I'd be more worried. And there is indication that Meta/FB cares (not in a good way) about Fedi, since they've been in meetings with instance admins ^.^

PissgreSQrule

The war on drugs is just shit urgh. Fucking over people's lives, both directly ("you put something in your body that the government didnt approve of so suffer"), and indirectly ("other people put this stuff in their body in ways we don't approve of, so even though with doctor's suggestion we have decided you're allowed to have a little bit for medical reasons and hence know it is probably vital you have it, we're just going to make it difficult, frustrating, or impossible to get and ruin big parts of your life in case you're secretly using it in ways we dont approve of") nya

It's wrecking people's lives by presumption of guilt - or at least, not presumption of innocence - for a stupid "crime" (where at least some of the committers are also likely to be self medicating ADHD lmao).

I have ADHD (and have medication for it, though i dont use it 100% of the time every day, but do have it most times). I have methylphenidate, which is a bit different to adderal though its still a stimulant.

Honestly the side effects are not great (really don't understand why someone would have this recreationally at any higher dose), but I don't actually give a shit if soneone does consume it either recreationally or for uni work (though stimulants in non adhd people worsen problem solving skills while on it, but the fact people use it for studying and still benefit really to me illustrates a problem with the way things are taught and assessed as well as the high sociopolitical pressure for grades) >.<.

I actually get a bit irritated sometimes, cause a lot of adhd folks see these shortages and blame "illegal users" rather than bullshit war on drugs policy that violates bodily autonomy.

At least as far as I am concerned I dont think people using these things illegally is "wrong" - I don't see why it's any of my business even if I don't think it's the greatest idea or get why given the side effects (might be a bit different for adderal since it has some slightly different effects to what I have nya) - especially when some of them may be self-medicating, as per this article.

Nope! :)