Why Defederating from Facebook/Meta is So Important

I strongly encourage instance admins to defederate from Facebook/Threads/Meta.

They aren’t some new, bright-eyed group with no track record. They’re a borderline Machiavellian megacorporation with a long and continuing history of extremely hostile actions:

  • Helping enhance genocides in countries
  • Openly and willingly taking part in political manipulation (see Cambridge Analytica)
  • Actively have campaigned against net neutrality and attempted to make “facebook” most of the internet for members of countries with weaker internet infra - directly contributing to their amplification of genocide (see the genocide link for info)
  • Using their users as non-consenting subjects to psychological experiments.
  • Absolutely ludicrous invasions of privacy - even if they aren’t able to do this directly to the Fediverse, it illustrates their attitude.
  • Even now, they’re on-record of attempting to get instance admins to do backdoor discussions and sign NDAs.

Yes, I know one of the Mastodon folks have said they’re not worried. Frankly, I think they’re being laughably naive >.<. Facebook/Meta - and Instagram’s CEO - might say pretty words - but words are cheap and from a known-hostile entity like Meta/Facebook they are almost certainly just a manipulation strategy.

In my view, they should be discarded as entirely irrelevant, or viewed as deliberate lies, given their continued atrocious behaviour and open manipulation of vast swathes of the population.

Facebook have large amounts of experience on how to attack and astroturf social media communities - hell I would be very unsurprised if they are already doing it, but it’s difficult to say without solid evidence ^.^

Why should we believe anything they say, ever? Why should we believe they aren’t just trying to destroy a competitor before it gets going properly, or worse, turn it into yet another arm of their sprawling network of services, via Embrace, Extend, Extinguish - or perhaps Embrace, Extend, Consume would be a better term in this case?

When will we ever learn that openly-manipulative, openly-assimilationist corporations need to be shoved out before they can gain any foothold and subsume our network and relegate it to the annals of history?

I’ve seen plenty of arguments claiming that it’s “anti-open-source” to defederate, or that it means we aren’t “resilient”, which is wrong ^.^:

  • Open source isn’t about blindly trusting every organisation that participates in a network, especially not one which is known-hostile. Threads can start their own ActivityPub network if they really want or implement the protocol for themselves. It doesn’t mean we lose the right to kick them out of most - or all - of our instances ^.^.
  • Defederation is part of how the fediverse is resilient. It is the immune system of the network against hostile actors (it can be used in other ways, too, of course). Facebook, I think, is a textbook example of a hostile actor, and has such an unimaginably bad record that anything they say should be treated as a form of manipulation.

Edit 1 - Some More Arguments

In this thread, I’ve seen some more arguments about Meta/FB federation:

  • Defederation doesn’t stop them from receiving our public content:
    • This is true, but very incomplete. The content you post is public, but what Meta/Facebook is really after is having their users interact with content. Defederation prevents this.
  • Federation will attract more users:
    • Only if Threads makes it trivial to move/make accounts on other instances, and makes the fact it’s a federation clear to the users, and doesn’t end up hosting most communities by sheer mass or outright manipulation.
    • Given that Threads as a platform is not open source - you can’t host your own “Threads Server” instance - and presumably their app only works with the Threads Server that they run - this is very unlikely. Unless they also make Threads a Mastodon/Calckey/KBin/etc. client.
    • Therefore, their app is probably intending to make itself their user’s primary interaction method for the Fediverse, while also making sure that any attempt to migrate off is met with unfamiliar interfaces because no-one else can host a server that can interface with it.
    • Ergo, they want to strongly incentivize people to stay within their walled garden version of the Fediverse by ensuring the rest remains unfamiliar - breaking the momentum of the current movement towards it. ^.^
  • We just need to create “better” front ends:
    • This is a good long-term strategy, because of the cycle of enshittification.
    • Facebook/Meta has far more resources than us to improve the “slickness” of their clients at this time. Until the fediverse grows more, and while they aren’t yet under immediate pressure to make their app profitable via enshittification and advertising, we won’t manage >.<
    • This also assumes that Facebook/Meta won’t engage in efforts to make this harder e.g. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish/Consume, or social manipulation attempts.
    • Therefore we should defederate and still keep working on making improvements. This strategy of “better clients” is only viable in combination with defederation.

https://infosec.pub/comment/653611 (post got too long!)

A digital speedpainting. A giant reaper with a golden chain around their neck with the logo of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp and a headband with the meta logo. The giant silhouette surprise a tiny group in comparison; a warm scene of small cute characters gathered around a Fediverse glowing logo. This is the mascott of Mastodon, Pleroma, Misskey, Funkwhale, Lemmy, Peertube.

This is my feelings in reference to the discussions about Meta joining the Fediverse...

License: CC-By 
(except logo of Meta/Facebook/What'sApp and Instagram, under trademarks)
pewgar_seemsimandroid,

we need to force defederation from thread’s

phil299,

My gut tells me we should defed all corporate instances as a matter of policy. Our uniqueness is at jeopardy , think of threads like the borg.

WizzCaleeba,

Obligatory upvote for Star Trek referenceThat’s the beauty of individual servers, isn’t it? If you’re on an instance that doesn’t defend those corporate instances, but want to, them just move to one that does. The voices will speak.

KonalaKoala,
@KonalaKoala@lemmy.world avatar

In that case, could hear them at some point going, “We are the Threads. Deactivate your firewalls, surrender your instances. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your federated culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is Futile.”, to make you think on how you are going to respond to that.

bouncing,
@bouncing@partizle.com avatar

I disagree.

Let me give you a thought experiment. Suppose you have an ISP. HTTP is a federated protocol. Should your ISP “take a stand” against Facebook by blocking the domain? I think very few people would think that wise. Should your email provider take the same stand by disallowing you from exchanging emails with fb.com or meta.com? Obviously not.

sapient_cogbag,
@sapient_cogbag@infosec.pub avatar

ISPs are at a different level of the stack and already have an oligopoly.

We can see the end state of email from when they let big corps take over - its very difficult to selfhost without permission from them lest you get marked as spam.

We have an opportunity to prevent that before it happens here, too. ^.}^

bouncing,
@bouncing@partizle.com avatar

ISPs are at a different level of the stack and already have an oligopoly.

ISPs and Instances both offer you access to a wider network. That one exists on a network level is another matter. If there were a multitude of ISPs, like there was in the dialup era, would you have wanted them to decide what domains resolve?

its very difficult to selfhost without permission from them lest you get marked as spam

That’s because they’re essentially defederating entities they don’t trust; exactly what’s being proposed here. The solution to defederation is not pre-emptive defederation.

What email is really suffering from is a failure of the network to combat abuse. That’s a real problem for the Fediverse too, because there’s almost nothing that stops someone from spinning up infinite numbers of instances and spamming other instances.

sapient_cogbag,
@sapient_cogbag@infosec.pub avatar

That’s because they’re essentially defederating entities they don’t trust; exactly what’s being proposed here. The solution to defederation is not pre-emptive defederation.

They’re defederating smaller entities because the network got consumed by corpos. And abuse, but lots of that comes from big services and they don’t defed those.

Fediverse instances aren’t just providers, they’re communities.

That’s a real problem for the Fediverse too, because there’s almost nothing that stops someone from spinning up infinite numbers of instances and spamming other instances.

This is in essence what FB/Meta is doing, all the time, except it’s not individual spam it’s an algorithmically backed manipulation mechanism using it’s users as tools ^.^

bouncing,
@bouncing@partizle.com avatar

They’re defederating smaller entities because the network got consumed by corpos. And abuse, but lots of that comes from big services and they don’t defed those.

It’s tempting to believe the email issue really is some conspiracy to keep the little guy down, but it really is just that a new domain, with low volume, is a strong signal for abuse. That is true with or without trouble from Gmail, Yahoo, etc. If you wrote a machine learning algorithm to find spam, your ML would come to the same conclusion. There’s no obvious solution to that.

Fediverse instances aren’t just providers, they’re communities.

Just like email list serves. Should a listserv block gmail subscriptions? I would again argue not.

This is in essence what FB/Meta is doing, all the time, except it’s not individual spam it’s an algorithmically backed manipulation mechanism using it’s users as tools ^.^

Presumably people using Threads want that. Or they’ll tolerate it.

sapient_cogbag,
@sapient_cogbag@infosec.pub avatar

Presumably people using Threads want that. Or they’ll tolerate it.

They will do it to us, not just Threads users.

Fediverse instances aren’t just providers, they’re communities.

Just like email list serves. Should a listserv block gmail subscriptions? I would again argue not.

Its more like email lists blocking people from other email lists. If there is a massive email list that has continually and specifically coordinated to destroy or consume other email lists and spent massive resources learning specifically how to do this via social manipulation, yes, I would think blocking people from that email list is a very good idea ^.^

It’s tempting to believe the email issue really is some conspiracy to keep the little guy down, but it really is just that a new domain, with low volume, is a strong signal for abuse

Perhaps if it wasn’t already corporate agglomerated, this wouldn’t be so true. But fediverse isn’t email, we have easier indicators for abuse because most content is public and we can guesstimate how much of an instance is “real” users ^.^

kiwiheretic,

I thought I would just chime in here if I am allowed. I looked for an official Facebook lemmy but couldn’t find one.

I have become a bit satisfied with Facebook as of late. They used to allow tools for embedding social pages into private websites and whilst technically they still do their level of support for such seems to have plummeted to non existent. I don’t know if that is a conscious effort by Meta to close down forum support or whether it is because they are moving more towards a “pay to play” business model. This in, my opinion, suddenly erects a huge barrier to entry, to even get started developing with their platform. It would seem to me it would have been more prudent, as a business model, to provide free support to get started but start charging when their products are established or at least have some way to talk to a support person.

What I am saying, in a roundabout way, is maybe the world is ready for a decent alternative, even in the business space, and Facebook no longer seems to be it. I really can’t understand how their support has collapsed so badly for developers.

jasonbcfcufc,

is there a good twitter app out there instead of the original for android?

Gradually_Adjusting,
@Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world avatar

Defed every corporation. McDonald’s starts an instance? Fuck off and fix your ice cream machine. Gabe Newell starts a Steam instance? No Gabe, go make half life 3. Make all these suits federate each other and see if anyone wants to talk on their shit.

kratoz29,

No Gabe, go make half life 3.

This make me chuckle.

Bushwhack,

I mean, they aren’t fucking wrong. Half life 3 has a federated communication system built into multiplayer? Go do it Gabe.

sapient_cogbag,
@sapient_cogbag@infosec.pub avatar

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.

Gradually_Adjusting,
@Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world avatar

Meta might be the worst possible company to darken our doorstep; at least Elon would fail.

intensely_human,

Yes, reputation is very important. The cluster of people known as Meta has proven it is nefarious at best.

It’s good to consider the case-by-case basis instead of just making general rules.

Like if Lowes wanted to make an instance I wouldn’t worry much about its corporate influence. But Meta is actually an evil organization.

(Though their React docs are some of the best docs I’ve ever read)

platypus_plumba,

It’s strange how Mastodon is so willingly letting them in. Fishy… Fishy and hairy. Like a fish with some nice bangs. Maybe a mullet. A little mustache too, recently brushed with a little mustache brush.

Arcenus,

Agree.

But isn’t half life alyx basically hl3?

Gradually_Adjusting,
@Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world avatar

VR will remain a gimmick until it isn’t a whole-ass lifestyle.

Hikiru,
@Hikiru@lemmy.world avatar

“Vr is a gimmick” -people who haven’t owned a proper vr headset

Irlut_,

I do games research for a living and have access to pretty much every relevant VR headset made since the first Oculus.

VR is very much a gimmick. There is no killer app or feature, and the closest thing we get to one are exergames like Beat Saber. Games like HL: Alyx don’t really offer enough novelty to make people invest several thousand dollars. Similarly, virtual desktops are neat but really don’t offer any tangible benefits compared to a large monitor to make up for the added discomfort of having to wear a VR headset. The Snow Crash-style metaverse is and always has been absolute bullshit. It’s just a less convenient version of the metaverse we already have.

VR has some potential to create cool embodied experiences, but the benefits so far are so slight that the technology is looking a lot like 3D TV and HD-DVD: technically impressive, no meaningful improvement in the holistic user experience. Hence, it remains a gimmick.

Hikiru,
@Hikiru@lemmy.world avatar

There are multiple games that wouldn’t be the same without VR. A Township Tale, Gorilla Tag, Echo VR. None of these would be nearly as fun without VR. The biggest issue with VR is probably the lack of some more linear story driven AAA games that many people are used to. And you don’t need to invest several thousand dollars for VR. Stand-alone VR with the quest has been a thing for years

Molecular0079,

Yeah I really wish PCVR was still alive and well instead of the stagnant industry that it currently is. I bought both a Rift S and a Quest 2 thinking that full-length story driven games were going to become a thing, but then the hardware limitations of standalone kinda killed that. Now I don’t really have any interest in buying a Quest 3 or a Vision Pro because I don’t have any faith that there’s going to be developers making those kinds of experiences anymore.

Hikiru,
@Hikiru@lemmy.world avatar

I don’t get why games can optimize for mobile hardware but can’t just give lower graphics settings on PC for some reason. Maybe stand-alone wouldn’t have been such a big thing if they had done that

Irlut_,

You’re kind of making my point for me here. The games that exist for VR don’t really add anything that didn’t already exist but with less convenient controls. A Township Tale is fundamentally just an MMO in VR, and we have already have dozens of MMOs that are easier to play. Similarly, we have a ton of story-based games on other platforms that work perfectly well. VR as a medium doesn’t really do anything for the gaming experience in those cases.

Games that make use of the inherently different interaction modalities of VR, like Beat Saber and Gorilla Tag, show some promise in terms of new ways of playing games. That kind of interaction is really interesting and brings something new to the table. Unfortunately, they’re also effortful to play and as such are generally difficult to play for extended periods of time. To some extent they all become exergames. Since they also need a fair amount of space to play there’s a certain barrier to entry for playing them.

I think the the standalone headsets are the future of VR, mostly due to the lower instep to get started. I even own a Quest 2 that I play sometimes (admittedly mostly Beat Saber and Ragnarock). However, the standalone VR headsets are also kind of limited in terms of computational power, so there’s some competition from the casual and mobile market. The mobile (and console, and PC) platforms also don’t have the added baggage of physical excersion that comes with VR, which makes them more accessible than VR.

Again, there really isn’t much of a case for VR beyond exergames. Games being VR can be a selling point for the true believers in VR, but for most people it’s kind of a fun experience that isn’t very meaningful.

Hikiru,
@Hikiru@lemmy.world avatar

A township tale is fun because of the fact that you use your hands for everything. Putting tools together, hammering nails in, fighting monsters, that’s what differentiates it from other MMOs. I don’t see a problem with VR games being physically exerting, less people sitting in a chair playing games is a good thing. In fact the physical nature of it is what makes it fun. I don’t see VR as the future of gaming or anything, I see it as another way to play. Just like I prefer keyboard and mouse for shooters and controller for platformers. The games I play in VR are games I wouldn’t like in a traditional format. The interactivity and immersion of VR is impossible to replicate in a normal game. That doesn’t mean normal games don’t have their place, they obviously do and I don’t think VR should replace them.

EyesEyesBaby,

I’ve never had any problems at McDonald’s with their ice cream / milkshake machines in Europe. Maybe the US simply gets the faulty machines?

Ilikecheese,

It’s a pretty well established anecdote that most of the time a McDonalds tells you the ice cream machine is broken, it’s because they’ve already cleaned it for the night and if they use it again they’ll need to reclean it. It’s easier to say it’s broken rather than make one dessert and then have to reclean it all over again.

danielton,
@danielton@lemmy.world avatar

Bullshit. I know everybody loves a good “lazy employees” story, but American machines are designed to break down constantly so Taylor gets repair revenue from McDonald’s franchise owners.

I used to work at McDonald’s and got tired of the constant accusations from customers. Johnny Harris made an excellent video on this topic.

I know a good number of McDonald’s employees are lazy, but that damn machine was the bane of my existence when I was a manager. It would just randomly decide not to work for the day and we had to call Taylor.

MeetInPotatoes,

That’s not why at all. Watch the video @danielton posted below.

benji,

There’s heaps of vids on yt about the MacDonald’s ice cream machine racket.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=SrDEtSlqJC4

boeman,

The company that maintains the machines has a contractually enforced monopoly over the franchisee’s. This means it’s impossible to get parts or fix the machines outside of them doing it.

FarLine99,

Defederation is the only way. Freedom. Fediverse. Only forward!

zos_kia,

I’m right there with you. I can already foresee that their apps will be prioritizing monetized users like content creators and everything in there will be a transaction of some sort. Who cares, you just have to block their instances and go about your merry way.

SulaymanF,

I have no love for corporations but they’re a fact of life by this point on the internet. They drive a significant about of marketing and users and they’re what make a social media platform take off (which is why Parler and Gab fell apart).

Fediverse SHOULD be an ethical platform, but you have server admins defederating any instance that even has paid subscribers. Isn’t that going too far? Are we trying to force everyone on here into a kibbutz?

TechnoBabble,

I believe the only instances that should be defederated are corporate, self-harm, profanely illegal, and political extremist instances.

Anything further than that and the whole network is going to devolve into a series of micro echo chambers.

Or maybe it won’t, maybe the vast and free instances will flourish while the restrictive instances die out.

Either way, trying to control a community based on wishy washy ideology is not a good look.

I think in these early days we’ll see a lot of power drunk admins who are too eager to push the button, just because they can.

spader312,

To add to that maybe a general rule of thumb would be to defederate with any instances that go against the sustainability and self interest of the whole fediverse.

TechnoBabble,

Absolutely, and the actions that “go against the sustainability and self-interest of the fediverse” will need to be analyzed and codified into fediverse “law.”

If we make specific and firm rules about what is disallowed on an instance, it makes enforcing those rules simple.

GatoB,

Whats wrong with steam?

YarRe,

It’s a giant drm manager. Popular, useful, sure, but the day it dies all your content will go poof.

GatoB,

Wait, do you need Internet access to play your offline games? If so, moving to itch.io

Syrc,

Depends on the game. These ones for example don’t even require you to launch them through Steam.

Draconic_NEO,
@Draconic_NEO@lemmy.world avatar

Should Note that if a game isn’t on that list, that doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t DRM free. For example “Rain world” is not on that list and it is not required to launch it through Steam. So this list is by no means exhaustive.

Gradually_Adjusting,
@Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world avatar

I like itch, but it’s no steam killer. We need a way to somehow own our digital games in a way that is not centralized to one marketplace.

GatoB,

What benefits could give to the user and the producer the descentralization?

Gradually_Adjusting,
@Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world avatar

Disintermediation would be nice; More of my money going directly into the hands of game developers instead of executives. Also, people who own games should be able to resell them. Can’t do that with centralized platforms. A benefit of decentralized game ownership would be that the developer could be cut into the resale of their games, which shifts the incentive to a more long-term view. A game could be something that is supported by the “used” market, and therefore has a reason to invest in long-term value. No more drive to keep on reinventing the wheel and releasing new games every year, just keep on making the existing game better.

GatoB,

Oh, nice response, I want to be optimistic and see in the future more and more descentralization

Gradually_Adjusting,
@Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world avatar

Samesies. I came to these conclusions while researching what GameStop’s up to with its token marketplace. I hope they are planning something along the lines of what I’m talking about, but if they’re not then I hope someone else does. It’s an idea whose time has come I think.

GatoB,

Oh cool, do you have a video or something explaining it? It looks interesting

Gradually_Adjusting,
@Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world avatar

Robbie Ferguson is deep in this stuff as one of the development partners (IMX provides key technologies that makes the marketplace green and cheap trade on). Here’s one of his interviews to start. www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAjYtL6SkiU

However it’s an unrealized technology, and kind of a moonshot admittedly. If anyone can pull it off it’s GameStop IMO. There’s not another global video game sales company with a vested interest in reselling digital games - the others like steam are happy to keep things the way they are, naturally (basically, DRM and no resale).

Wilker, (edited )
@Wilker@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

i think nothing beats literally getting the zip file with all the contents of the game with no middleware like GOG employs. to decentralize the store further requires the devs to at least manage their own website hosting, domains, ownership status accounts for updates. the only step available beyond that is the payment methods, and i don’t think there’s any viable solution to be done in that case besides having more companies like Stripe and Paypal.

in that sense, Itch is handling things pretty good for devs so far,

Gradually_Adjusting,
@Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world avatar

The main thing I’m for is improved ownership rights, and currently GOG is the best of them. The only downside with it is that you can’t sell it on when you’re done, like old games in physical media. When digital media has none of digital media’s drawbacks, then I’ll leave off about the potential of NFTs.

Wilker,
@Wilker@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

problem there is that anti-drm and ownership of a license to download and run software don’t combine while financially viable to the stores. aside from the additional problem of having to manage inventories, trades and everything that happens to break those systems, “owning” the license and allowing to sell to someone else doesn’t do much if you don’t employ a DRM to enforce the make-believe of you pretending you’re monetarily compensating a physical larbor of transferring a given copy of a media, people will share things with each other before you can blink and not care where it comes from so long as it runs and it’s clean, specially in places where people won’t pay for games instead of food. only reason CSGO skins works on Steam as the original NFT system is because there’s servers to enforce what people get to see you holding and what you don’t own. and allowing for transferring games between accounts without a DRM is not something you’ll ever see any big company doing under the liability of being accused of promoting “piracy”.

dudewitbow,

Isnt that based on the assumption that Valves public comment about removing the drm in the case they go under is a lie. It becomes a trust issue then, and to the public view, many put trust in them.

YarRe,

They have no reason to honor that, and are a corporation. I don’t consider that binding or realistic.

dudewitbow,

There are many things that happen for “no reason”. Its fully a trust issue if you dont think it would happen.

YarRe,

OK. You’re welcome to trust in anything you like. I believe contracts, not promises.

ilikekeyboards,

Right now we’re losing tons of information after snapchat bought and deleted the gyffcaf website.

Now imagine losing all games when Gabe dies and the new patron loses the company to a newfound addiction to whatever

DarkMatter_contract,

I dont think mastodon would, but i think lemmy kbin would. The target audience is different, one is twitter and the other is reddit like. I dont think twitter user hate fb as much as we do.

Gradually_Adjusting,
@Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world avatar

They always did strike me as idiots

varzaman,

This is an extremely weird ass take to have. Why would the average user give a shit?

Compared to most problems people have, the intricacies of social media platforms is not high on a lot of people’s list. They just go where the content is.

What a very insufferable opinion to have lol.

Like god damn, I knew that the early adopters will have the hardcore with em, but some of you guys need to relax.

Gradually_Adjusting,
@Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world avatar

I’ve been radicalized by corporate social media’s deliberate harm, what can I say.

Veinglorius,

This was a fascinating and well written paper. It reminded me of how Labor and social movements are co-opted historically.

Ilikepornaddict,

If I start seeing meta on here, I’ll leave. I left facebook over a decade ago, and want nothing to do with it. This seems like an obvious no brainer.

trouser_mouse,
@trouser_mouse@lemmy.world avatar

I think I fall on the side of preemptive defederation, not just because of data harvesting etc but also because the incoming communities will be huge and dwarf anything already here - look at what has happened here already as communities try to merge and establish. Everything dominant will become meta along with whatever mods and rules etc they already have in place. Scary.

iquanyin,
@iquanyin@lemmy.world avatar

yes! and i’ve wondered for awhile how people would still be able to run servers once threads swamped the fediverse.

HawlSera,

The corpos ruined everything, don’t let them do it again.

bannedfromapplebees,

Can someone explain what it means to defederste from meta/threads? I didn’t think those were federated so I’m a bit confused

sapient_cogbag,
@sapient_cogbag@infosec.pub avatar

It means we do not see content from them, and any posts they make or comments or similar won’t show up.

intensely_human,

I’m having trouble conceptualizing the attack strategies here. I also lack much understanding of what (exactly, precisely, at the technical level) federation is so I don’t understand how defederation is a defense against those attacks.

Would someone help me break this down conceptually? Are there any analogies? Is this like closing the gate of a castle? Is it like quarantining infected people? Like blocking a phone number? Not loaning someone money?

Please don’t just say “yes to all those analogies”. I’m casting about for understanding here.

How can I better understand OP’s argument here? (I have a background in tech and understand passwords, certificates, signatures, etc if that helps). Is email a federated thing? What’s federation precisely?

BreakingBad,

Layman here, from what I gather it sounds like federation is like one of those cups connected by lines. Federation is the equivalent of having a line connected to the web of cups and strings. Then suddenly a big cup provider comes into the mix, which at first seems great since there are more people communicating through cups. However, due to their bigger resources they greatly outpace the rest of the web, offering fancier cups and stronger wire, resulting in people moving to their cups. Then one day they cut the connections to all other cups but theirs; while the original web is still intact, the remaining users are essentially cut off from most of the cups they were connected for.

By defederating instances are basically (but probably not as effectively as Meta would) cutting that string before they get the chance to infiltrate the web.

Idk though once again I know very little

rockSlayer,

For “knowing very little”, you fucking nailed that analogy. That’s exactly what Instagram is trying to pull here.

sapient_cogbag,
@sapient_cogbag@infosec.pub avatar

Someone has explained the basic Embrace, Extend, Extinguish strategy below, but I also want to comment on my own “Embrace, Extend, Consume” idea, as well as the other issues that come with Facebook.

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 >.<

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

The other component specific to facebook 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.).

They have well over a decade of experience in this, hundreds of times more users, 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 strings (as in the other analogy by @BreakingBad) 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 both.

For hypothetical examples on how this might work - in reality it might be different in specific, 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 so just use Matrix ;p, but 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.
intensely_human,

So it’s like opening a wormhole to the borg homeworld. Not worth the effects of contact.

Xanvial,

I think I miss something, the ActivityPub protocol is not owned or maintained by Mastodon devs. Isn’t this just standard communication like an extension of HTTP? something like GraphQL (that created by Facebook itself). Quick google mentioned that ActivityPub is maintained by W3C.

So Meta can (and I think currently uses) ActivityPub, and all of your points already been possible without needing to federates with any other instances. For example, they already can say that ActivityPub doesn’t work on some cases, and push W3C to do some changes on the standard

minnow,

I think the critical difference is “Meta pushes for changes” vs “Meta pushes for changes with the support of thousands/millions of users”.

If Meta convinces Thread users that a certain change is good for them, it’s going to be that much harder for the people developing ActivityPub to push back on those changes. And even if the developers succeed, Meta can just use that to say “fine, we’ll fork off and make our own ActivityPub with data collection and advertisements” and if enough instances in the Fediverse are reliant one Threads for engagement they may just switch to the Meta version of ActivityPub, taking a chunk of our community with them.

And maybe that’s alright for some folks, but a lot of us don’t want any of that to happen, even potentially. I think it’s pretty unethical to deliver people into the maw of the beast like that, so to speak.

Semenaisse,

I’m still getting used to this platform, so this might be a stupid question. Are we able to see their content/can they see ours?

sapient_cogbag,
@sapient_cogbag@infosec.pub avatar

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) ^.^

klieg2323,
@klieg2323@lemmy.piperservers.net avatar

Why wouldn’t they be able to interact with it, at least within their own ecosystem? The way I understand, if I defederate with them on my instance they can still see my content but I can’t see theirs. There’s nothing stopping Metta from taking that public data anyways and allow only their users to interact with it in their own sealed space. With how many users they have, it’s possible it wouldn’t even be noticed by the average threads user

sapient_cogbag,
@sapient_cogbag@infosec.pub avatar

Why wouldn’t they be able to interact with it. The way I understand, if I defederate with them on my instance they can still see my content but I can’t see theirs. There’s nothing stopping Metta from taking that public data anyways and allow only their users to interact with it in their own sealed space. With how many users they have, it’s possible it wouldn’t even be noticed by the average threads user

Well, theoretically we could do the same. Host shadow-Threads content. That’s essentially what’s going on with reddit repost-bots, after all. But if you look at those they usually have no comments and for Facebook in particular, I would argue that enabling their ability to spread their content to the Fediverse is dangerous even if we don’t interact with it.

And the same is true for Threads - they could actually do that kind of re-posting, in theory, but then it’s pretty much just them reposting a link to some post on the Fediverse with their own silo. We wouldn’t see any of them at that point. I’m arguing for defederating on the basis that it protects us from Meta/Facebook, not on the basis that it would stop Threads users from seeing some parts of Fediverse content (essentially posted as links) ^.^.

intensely_human,

I would argue that enabling their ability to spread their content to the Fediverse is dangerous even if we don’t interact with it

How is it dangerous?

sapient_cogbag,
@sapient_cogbag@infosec.pub avatar

Meta/Facebook has 100s of times the number of users, many more times the amount of resources, the constant desire to consume other platforms like Instagram and whatsapp (or destroy the a-la Embrace, Extend, Extinguish), and well over a decade of experience in engaging in manipulation and essentially, information warfare, to get what they want and commit hienous behaviour.

Even just the quantity of users on a single, difficult to exit instance is a risk, but the continuous and long history of Facebook engaging in largescale psychological manipulation makes them many times more dangerous ^.^

In particular, you looking at their algorithmically curated posts enables them to manipulate you with their decades of refined, algorithmic experience in doing so, as they have repeatedly done in the past.

intensely_human,

So basically their content is dangerous. Even if it’s user-generated, it can be machine-curated for psychological manipulation. What seems like a natural flow of conversation could be a signal used to hack our minds.

I’m not trying to make it sound crazy by wording it that way. There are people in my life I just had to cut out because their speech was toxic to my mental health in a way I couldn’t rationally object to. I just had to stop listening to them.

Sharan,

I know tonfuck of reasons why we shouldn’t have them here. Are there any advantages?

DundasStation,

There must never be a single dominant instance. If one instance becomes too large, they end up having too much influential power. And with all that power, big corporations or power tripping admins will use that power to coerce other instances to do certain things. “Don’t want to follow our unilaterally-imposed rule? We’re gonna cut off your entire instance and your users will lose access to our communities.”

If Meta doesn’t get defederated, they will become the dominant instance. They already have the most amount of users since I’m assuming you can use your Facebook/Instagram account, they’ll have the most amount of user activity, and of course the most amount of power.

another_lemming,

That’s how majority-vik party becomes the government on display.

Denying big powerful entities from controlling you is both anarchist and communist, and is based.

I’m sure if it comes to being ruled by Meta, many previously .lm users would get it.

From the side of Fediverse, there’s like no argument to accept Facebook but WE NEED TO GROW. And no, the influx of some millions of users won’t bring life or quality to Lemmy, it would replace it for what culture of communicating is in the Insta. And I don’t feel like many people there would vote to have this.

Once you accept it, your community is overtaken (and you need to serve another thousands of users as an admin). I don’t feel anyone would be open to include them.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • [email protected]
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • Socialism
  • KbinCafe
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • Ask_kbincafe
  • oklahoma
  • feritale
  • SuperSentai
  • KamenRider
  • All magazines