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)
redditcunts,

Lolol this thread and the rest are pure compium without a plan.

Without monetization this place is DoA. Either step up, start a non profit e.g Mozilla foundation, and start charging users and hitting staff.

Otherwise you’re post is going to the void, accomplishing nothing.

Server performance: garbage Comment: garbage

PopOfAfrica,

The goal IMO of the fediverse was to have thousands of small local servers. Individuals can swings some money here and there for a small server.

You only need monitization to run a large instance

not_that_guy05,

Hold on, is Lemmy part of meta? Cause if it is I’m fuckin out of here as well. I do not support meta fb, or any other company like them.

khazram,
@khazram@mastodon.social avatar

@not_that_guy05 No. Lemmy is not owned by any corporation or any one person. All that federation or defederation means is whether an instance connects to another.

not_that_guy05,

Oh ok. I really hope they don’t allow it then. Meta is a cancer that grows once inside a body(platform).

MrPoopyButthole,
@MrPoopyButthole@lemmy.world avatar

One thing that people are not talking about is that it would be fairly trivial to create communities in the fediverse on open servers and then just sync a bunch of your corporate drivel from what ever company like meta into those communities. Its already happening. Reddit was the first one to do this. There are communities where every single link goes to Reddit here on Lemmy

RecursiveParadox,
@RecursiveParadox@lemmy.world avatar

But at least we could defederate those instances once we realize what they are doing, yes?

MrPoopyButthole,
@MrPoopyButthole@lemmy.world avatar

Its not as easy as that. If you have open signup on your instance you would have a hard time stopping a user signing up, creating a community, and then filling it with synced data from another location. There is no instance to defederate. They are in all open instances.

RecursiveParadox,
@RecursiveParadox@lemmy.world avatar

I see your point. But the owner of the server/instance can still kick the user and their community out right?

MrPoopyButthole,
@MrPoopyButthole@lemmy.world avatar

Sure they can. But if the actions are automated on the side of the mega corps then a human admin stands no chance of stopping them. Bot vs human, the bot always wins. The only solution is closed instances, which sucks because that goes against the whole idea of FOSS social media.

RecursiveParadox,
@RecursiveParadox@lemmy.world avatar

So it’s a scaling problem. Can we not fight bots with bots? And thanks for the answers, btw, really helping me understand more about the underlying architecture, which before seemed rather abstract to me.

Bishma,
@Bishma@social.fossware.space avatar

If the fediverse can’t survive meta it can’t survive. If decentralization’s Achilles heel is corporations then decentralization is not viable strategy in the current world and we should give up on it now.

Threads wasn’t first, and it’s going to be very very far from last. There is no escape from corporate interests in any g7 nation - other than being deemed too small to matter

sapient_cogbag,
@sapient_cogbag@infosec.pub avatar

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.

Hikiru,
@Hikiru@lemmy.world avatar

What does it defend us against though? The only thing we get from federating with them is more users. Lack of users is the biggest reason people won’t use mastodon. Once threads starts federating it makes it easier to convince people to move. By accessing threads content from mastodon, meta gets no data from us other than the stuff that’s already public for anyone to see. You don’t need to give them device permissions, you don’t need an instagram account. I don’t see the issue. I don’t think all instances should defederate, some should so people have the option to not see threads posts though.

sapient_cogbag,
@sapient_cogbag@infosec.pub avatar

Social manipulation, brazen EEE or EEC. None of this is necessarily specifically about privacy, which I explained in the post, but about open and brazen manipulation.

Hikiru,
@Hikiru@lemmy.world avatar

What is EEE and EEC

awarenessis,

Perhaps what is eventually needed is some sort of Fediverse Alliance that operates under established usage/ethical guidelines.

To join the Alliance, an instance must sign a Terms of Agreement/Charter/Constitution that is written (and owned w/ potential for future amendment) by said alliance. It would contain all of the data usage rules and operational ethics that must be adhered to in order to be a member of the Alliance (and therefore have access/be joined to the group of allied Fediverse instances via federation).

If such an Alliance were successfully formed (especially if top-instances banded together) it becomes a powerful mechanism to filter out the bad and protect the users. For example: perhaps one charter rule is no for-profits or corporate instances?

If an instance violates the charter they would face defederation from the Alliance—perhaps by vote? ( ie group level defederation). At this point the offending instance(s) could of course create their own Alliance. However the benefits of being in the “Primary Alliance” are lost (or gained!).

Just thinking out loud.

Edit: Alliance self-governance would need to be thought of very very carefully in order to protect against corruption and hostile acts….

hazeebabee,

I think this is a really good long term strategy, and something that is already happening to some level.

Many instances are open about blocking others, and warn eachother of bad instances (like a instance full of spam bots or bigots). I could definetly see this evolving into an alliance type network like you described.

SUPERcrazy3530,
@SUPERcrazy3530@lemmy.world avatar

“People joining the Fediverse are those looking for freedom. If people are not ready or are not looking for freedom, that’s fine. They have the right to stay on proprietary platforms. We should not force them into the Fediverse. We should not try to include as many people as we can at all cost. We should be honest and ensure people join the Fediverse because they share some of the values behind it.”

Who gets to appoint the gatekeepers?

bleph,

The gatekeepers are the instance mods/admins. The model is known to have problems…unfortunately, it’s the best option we have IMO

SUPERcrazy3530,
@SUPERcrazy3530@lemmy.world avatar

The OP wasn’t speaking for their server though they were speaking for the fediverse. Everyone should be able to run their server how they see fit but don’t speak for other people.

BNE,
@BNE@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

I don’t know, I think we have a responsibility to eachother to keep the Fediverse ecosystem healthy - Facebook/Meta isn’t exactly a humanist… well, anything.

I think it’s fair the white blood cells of our ‘body’ are calling for re-enforcements on this.

sapient_cogbag,
@sapient_cogbag@infosec.pub avatar

I actually support making it easier for people to join the Fediverse. For instance, by having each instance compile lists of other instances which self-determine the kinds of topics they want and pointing new users to instances that are less overloaded, and by making the signup process easier, and improving UI. Letting Facebook consume us and destroy us via EEE is not that.

The “gatekeepers” are the people willing to set up instances ^.^.

cybirdman,

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.

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.

sapient_cogbag,
@sapient_cogbag@infosec.pub avatar

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.

lemminer,

What’s the point of joining the fediverse when other antisocial network are abundantly available? They are well marketed in front of the public. I see nothing good coming out of integrating fediverse when you know they don’t really care about you.

notUboiii,

Exactly, while mainstreaming the fediverse might bring initial attention to it, in the long run it will just destroy the values that the fediverse stands for. Especially when it’s a predatorial company like Meta

MarioBarisa,
@MarioBarisa@vlemmy.net avatar

I think that this is the best take on this topic

sapient_cogbag,
@sapient_cogbag@infosec.pub avatar

That basically starts us playing the losing game of “more users at amy cost”. We will not win and it is comically naive to think so.

Read my post.

Venomnik0,
@Venomnik0@lemmy.world avatar

Wouldn’t creating a walled off garden ourselves bolster these corporations? There will just be more users on threads than anything else and people are already moving to threads anyways because that’s where “all the people are” especially people who have a major following and want to interact with where a majority of their followers are. This would just create more harm to artists/influencers on the mastodon platform than it will help and just make Meta even more powerful than they already are. This will just take us back to where we were, a bunch of people separated by social media servers rather than unified. I don’t want to have to make 3 different social media accounts just to talk to people that I’ve known for years. All you’re relying on is assumptions on what the future will be like without actually seeing it first hand. We need to be reasonable and we need to see for ourselves how this will all go before we defederate from millions of people. Sure, Instance admins need to be cautious but the people shouldn’t be separated just because of fear. You’re extinguishing a service already by doing this.

At the end of the day, I will respect whatever the instance admins on the various mastodon servers decide (especially smaller instances with minority groups that do want a safe space) because I believe Open Source is the freedom to choose. I just simply think it’s too cautious and the people of those major services like Threads are not willing to go use a service like Mastodon. It’s too new and they’ll never understand until we slowly but carefully mass educate them on what even is going on here and what even is a fediverse? We need to get people to see that mastodon is the safe space they need to be because there are people there who want specific things that threads already fails to provide (due to strict ruling and such). We need to be available for them just as mastodon is available to us.

sapient_cogbag,
@sapient_cogbag@infosec.pub avatar

Did you read my post? Meta/FB is a well known threat. We already know they are continuously engaging in information warfare towards their own ends and federating with threads just saps our momentum and redirects it towards them >.<

Defederating doesn’t stop people who want “exposure” from creating an account on Threads or even starting a masto instance. I highly doubt FB will make it obvious to Threads users that Mastodon even exists, which you would know if you read my comments on how their app acts as a silo.

Venomnik0,
@Venomnik0@lemmy.world avatar

“I highly doubt FB will make it obvious to Threads users that Mastodon even exists”

From the very last page on their own setup screen.

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ab534042-b948-4d33-9aa7-c90e57360438.jpeg

sapient_cogbag,
@sapient_cogbag@infosec.pub avatar

One tiny thing on the last page.

And what about after they get setup the first time?

Venomnik0,
@Venomnik0@lemmy.world avatar

Its right front and center. It won’t impact the user until they see mastodon accounts start appearing and hell it might appear again in an update just to tell them that it’s happening.

Also i know this might be off topic and or meaningless to you but this is a quote from Adam Mosseri who heads the project:

“If you’re wondering why this matters, here’s a reason: you may one day end up leaving Threads, or, hopefully not, end up de-platformed. If that ever happens, you should be able to take your audience with you to another server. Being open can enable that.”

Up to you to decide what they mean by this and how you want to treat it. For now my own personal theory as to why they’re doing this is because of pressure from the EU’s Digital Market/Services Act and it’s one protocol for all policy they’ve been promising it seems.

Sources for that theory: techcrunch-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/…/amp/?amp_…

…ampproject.org/…/eu_mandated_messaging_interop_p…

And the reb00ted article I got this idea from: reb00ted.org/…/20230627-meta-activitypub-eu-digit…

They’re just using us just to clear out from regulations.

Bubs,
@Bubs@lemmy.world avatar

“You may one day end up leaving threads” … Do you really expect meta to be ok with that ? It would go against their plan of world domination. Their whole business works by getting people addicted and unable to leave. They use all kinds of manipulation, even at the detriment of the quality of their services. You can’t trust whatever they say, it’s just corpo bullshit as always. Whatever they do, the question is never “what’s in it for users”, but “what’s in it for meta” and “what will it cost to not only users, but anyone that might be impacted”. Any big corpo want only their own good, at the detriment of any other, they never do anything for anyone unless it eventually benefits them more, bonus points if it harms the other, because they want to crush any competition. And meta doesn’t care about its users, depending on how you chose to view it, they are either just consumers being preyed upon, or actually the products, whose personal data is sold for a profit.

Venomnik0,
@Venomnik0@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah i know. Thats why i clarified with the additional theory that the only reason they’re doing this is because of regulations or what not and piggy backing off of us similar to redhat in a way but much bigger. That’s why I’m really weirded by that quote too. Its way out of character for Meta to do this and they might have a completely different exterior motive we have no clue about.

Bubs,
@Bubs@lemmy.world avatar

Defederating won’t do any harm to artists, everyone here will remain here, threads will just be a replacement for twitter and nothing will change. Creating a “walled off garden” as you say is actually a protection. We’re excluding the well known threat that is the Zuck. But we’re not excluding any users, anyone can join lemmy/mastodon… Would you partner up with a country run by nazis, even though the people in the country are the first victims ? No because you know their goals are not compatible with yours (I hope), and you know it will only benefit the nazi leaders and not the people anyway. If we just wait and see, it will probably be to late to act, big corporations are the best at fooling people (otherwise they couldn’t have become so powerful)

whereisdani_r,
@whereisdani_r@lemmy.world avatar

OP I completely agree with all of your points. ESPECIALLY (BIG BOLD LETTERS) we need to create better “front-ends” Anecdotally, I put a post a on mastodon that didn’t get responses (the vibe there seems a bit different on this issue, because I usually do get responses) Since the reddit migration, I’ve gone into a homelab frenzy. I have reached out to others. I have been in awe at the developers who worked on the overloading of servers and the jump on the creation of third party apps. The pre-existing community that explained a complicated process to many people.

We saw how many uses came over from reddit and found it too complicated. We had those discussions too. How there were solutions like simplifying what the fediverse is, what instances are, etc. etc. This took time for people who already cared about what was happening on reddit_ which is a small minority of internet uses.

And that would have been okay, right? We had our space, we could have had time to build.

I have been going on about this issue ad nauseum with my partner. I have a computer science background and work in cyber tech so this came to me a bit faster, but still a learning curve. I showed her videos, articles, walked her through the apps. But this is someone who is a social media user.

I had a fever for a few days (very irritated as it disrupted my home lab fever, pardon that pun) when my partner is comes running in thrilled*___* that she gets to be involved with my project and finally understands it because she saw Threads and the word “fediverse”

This is someone who is yes intelligent, who lives with someone who is way more involved with this issue that the average internet “normie”, and still, because of the front end UI, the simplification of it. The exact quote was “this is a space on the fediverse for me”

A lot of fighting happened, lol anyways if you have made it this far, especially to OP:

  1. We need to organize. I do not think anything can get done with siloed passionate informed users like ourselves. How do we organize? This will take crowd funding. Resources. Project roadmaps. Mission statements. Unfortunately, some of the ick of how we work together in a corp to roll to market.
  2. We need to move fast
  3. We need things pretty

How do we get this done?

Venomnik0,
@Venomnik0@lemmy.world avatar

This is someone who is yes intelligent, who lives with someone who is way more involved with this issue that the average internet “normie”, and still, because of the front end UI, the simplification of it. The exact quote was “this is a space on the fediverse for me”

This is exactly what I want to see and what I’ve been fighting for recently. This is complicated and brand new to all of us but if people realize they’re a part of something bigger than them. They would want to be part of that too!

sapient_cogbag,
@sapient_cogbag@infosec.pub avatar

This is complicated and brand new to all of us but if people realize they’re a part of something bigger than them. They would want to be part of that too!

That’s not how this works. The overwhelming majority of Threads users just saw whatever thing FB put on the instagram accounts and clicked it. They have probably never heard of the fediverse and even if they like the idea they’ll just go “oh, I’m already on it, no need to bother”.

We can get exposure without letting a company specialised in manipulation and astroturfing straight through the door.

Venomnik0,
@Venomnik0@lemmy.world avatar

even if they like the idea they’ll just go “oh, I’m already on it, no need to bother”. We can get exposure without letting a company specialised in manipulation and astroturfing straight through the door.

They were going to stay whether if there’s fediverse integration or not. Atleast having the option to communicate with threads is enough for the people on mastodon to stay on mastodon and have the choice to do so. Blocking them off will just cause mastodon users to have to make a seperate account just to merely communicate with their friends on Threads. Defeating the purpose of the fediverse entirely and going back to square one. Giving a corpo more power than they already need by being the only influence in their own platform and splitting off communites into the big bubbles of social media we had before the fediverse.

Besides should i have to wait till facebook fucks up before i even get a slight uptick in mastodon accounts again and potientially see my friends (if they’re even encouraged to even try it)?

sapient_cogbag,
@sapient_cogbag@infosec.pub avatar

Atleast having the option to communicate with threads is enough for the people on mastodon to stay on mastodon and have the choice to do so. Blocking them off will just cause mastodon users to have to make a seperate account just to merely communicate with their friends on Threads. Defeating the purpose of the fediverse entirely and going back to square one.

It doesn’t defeat the purpose to prevent a known-hostile actor from interacting with everyone on Fedi.

It’s not just your friends, it’s Facebook, with algorithms specifically designed to manipulate you and the communities you are part of - including your friends - and by engaging with them you end up locked back into FB’s reach and make it easier for them to EEE or EEC us or do even worse >.<

If you want to talk to your friends, use another app (including threads if you really feel that much need to interact with people who are only on there), or post links promoting Fedi on other platforms, to your friends.

Defederation exists to protect our network from groups like Meta/FB. It doesn’t defeat the purpose of federation to choose who to federate with.

Venomnik0,
@Venomnik0@lemmy.world avatar

Telling people to use another app is not a solution to the problem and again like I said would take us back to where we were from the start; locking the people that do want to use mastodon and other alternatives away from other users and forcing users to go use threads instead. We need to adopt a universal social media, not just seperate each other again and again. Just implying this isolationist attitude is whats going to give billionaires enough influence to force those users to accept changes and removed features and force them into a platform. Its a domino effect that goes back to us. I don’t want to have “move to threads” to talk to people i know. I want to use one unified mastodon account or lemmy account even and reach out to all my friends everywhere, even corpos.

Look hear me out though, I despise Meta as much as the next guy. In fact, threads is incredibly out of touch with the audience that actually uses twitter. There’s barely any features on it like hashtags, a search (not a followers search), followers only tab, even a desktop version of it. In fact the only gimmick that they really have is the fact they’re connecting to services like Mastodon. We should all be cautious about what they might do to us and the entire fediverse but bigger instances have the job of allowing and experimenting to see how this major influx of users will fair towards our own communites. The most I’m focused on is not just whether they should integrate but how they could be integrated and how as a community we should treat these people. What’s the cultural impact and everything.

I know that we all want the same thing for people to realize that corpos are gross and to get out of that shit. It’s ironic of me to say this too but i simply do believe that a user/instance has a choice in whether or not they want to interact with Meta and should have the choice. At the end of the day it all comes down to it. We shouldn’t all defederate but we should all have the choice to. Simple as that. I just want a social media that is as unified as email. I’m definitely going off a tangent but i just want a world that doesn’t tie users down to “just download x app here to talk to them”. Its not a solution, it’s the problem.

Venomnik0,
@Venomnik0@lemmy.world avatar

In fact I’d say the biggest threat to us is if Meta or whatever big bozo corporation decides to make their own version of ActivityPub (which is why i hate bluesky with a dying passion besides the AI crap).

Venomnik0,
@Venomnik0@lemmy.world avatar

“even if they like the idea they’ll just go “oh, I’m already on it, no need to bother”.”

“We can get exposure without letting a company specialised in manipulation and astroturfing straight through the door.”

They were going to stay whether if there’s fediverse integration or not. Atleast having the option to communicate with threads is enough for the people on mastodon to stay on mastodon and have the choice to do so. Blocking them off will just cause mastodon users to have to make a seperate account just to merely communicate with their friends on Threads. Defeating the purpose of the fediverse entirely and going back to square one. Giving a corpo more power than they already need by being the only influence in their own platform and splitting off communites into the big bubbles of social media we had before the fediverse.

Besides should i have to wait till facebook fucks up before i even get a slight uptick in mastodon accounts again and potientially see my friends (if they’re even encouraged to even try it)?

Kertain,

I am sure this might have been mentioned by someone else but my concern - someone that is financially motivated and saavy could work on becoming one of the larger instances in hopes Meta will buy them out. Similar to a startup, make a good product (community) and hope to get bought out for big bucks.

This means we need to trust instance owners and they in turn, as they get larger, need to be over transparent of their motivations, goals, and actions

Quesion: I don’t know if the tech limits this, but if an instance owner flips to the dark side- could past posts and content be opened up for Meta mandated data scraping? Or would any code change like that not be retroactive? Aka if we select an instance that turns bad could we be feeding the machine in the future without knowing it today?

MrPoopyButthole,
@MrPoopyButthole@lemmy.world avatar

There is no way to know if a Lemmy instance is running the official FOSS software or a modified closed source version. But to answer your question, anyone can scrape the public data even now. Your private data like DMs would need a backdoor or a zero day exploit to scrape.

sapient_cogbag,
@sapient_cogbag@infosec.pub avatar

Quesion: I don’t know if the tech limits this, but if an instance owner flips to the dark side- could past posts and content be opened up for Meta mandated data scraping? Or would any code change like that not be retroactive? Aka if we select an instance that turns bad could we be feeding the machine in the future without knowing it today?

Most of our posts are public already - that is part of how ActivityPub works. But internal data, any logs that might be kept, and a centralized repository of this data would be more accessible to Meta/FB if an instance were to be bought out.

However, this is true of essentially any entity capable of being bought, you can’t really avoid it without going full p2p and even then…

anachronist,

Meta isn’t going to “buy anyone out” if they’re federated. They’ll just turn your instance into a portal into threads for everyone using your instance, then force your users to join threads by killing the link. Meta bought insta and whatsapp because they were completely unfederated alternatives to facebook that were gaining traction that facebook could not kill.

Smothering your competitor is always preferable to buying them out. www.youtube.com/watch?v=H27rfr59RiE

EmperorHenry,
@EmperorHenry@lemmy.world avatar

Facebook sucks, there’s nothing but dumb boomers on there now. And the amount of data they harvest from their users is insane. If they think you’re a bot, they’ll demand to see your government issued ID or your SSN to “verify” you and totally not to get deeper insight into who you are and how to sell shit to you.

monsterovich,

How Google killed XMPP

Google didn’t kill XMPP, it died on its own. XMPP still lacks default encryption and proper file transfers (there are 3 implementations of file transfers and all of them suck). The problem is that XMPP never had a normal protocol, and as a result, clients were forced to implement the features themselves through extensions which were not supported by all clients and servers. So it’s hard to blame Google for starting to do their own implementation of features. Matrix did everything better, but for some reason people don’t use it. They don’t, because there’s Telegram, Discord and so on.

Don’t defend XMMP. It’s obsolete. If you want a federation, use Matrix.

sapient_cogbag,
@sapient_cogbag@infosec.pub avatar

Matrix is definitely better. But that doesn’t mean Google didn’t help kill XMPP when the open protocol could absolutely have been pushed forward to fix the flaws.

interdimensionalmeme,

Hello, I run a 5 user XMPP server for me and my friends Here is the deal in 2023 OMEMO encryption, which is forward secret, is enabled by default in most clients, and alerts you when it is broken But you are right that there are major flaws right now the need to be addressed

#1 is notifications on Apple are broken by Apple, the only solution is getting non-apple friends. That sucks !

That is the big big BIG problem

The rest are mostly quality of life issues

audio/video calls and conference calls mostly does not work

posted links do not display OpenGraph summary, it just stays a cryptic URL

OMEMO breaks serverside history, OpenGPG end-to-end encryption does not really work

There are no message reactions “User X liked this comment”

There are no message replies (User X replies to a specific comment )"

There are no message deletion/message retraction

Presence, as in the first P in XMPP is not more advanced than 1998 ICQ, online, away, dnd, invisible, offline, custom message , There is no real presence and multi-client largely breaks presence. Only good aspect of presence are message delivered / message read notification are they are spotty when using multiple clients

These are really the bare minimum that XMPP needs to just to back as a peer in the “regular people actually using instant messaging” game No doubt, the apparent one way street of Google doing embrace, extend extinguish of the XMPP community didn’t help much. But it’s doubtful that it is google that caused XMPP to lag behind.

And on the last note, most of the XMPP client are still under active development with regular monthly progress. Especially Conversation and Gajim are doing excellent work and I still keep my friend group on XMPP because I have hope that all the points above will get fixed at some point.

anachronist,

I was there and I was using XMPP. Interacting with google chat slowly became the purpose of xmpp. Everyone who was using xmpp eventually found themselves talking mostly to google users. Then Google killed the link and every xmpp instance instantly became useless.

We can (and are) building a community without facebook. Or we can link to facebook and find that they quickly through sheer mass become the center of the lemmy community. And then comes the knife.

NutWrench,
@NutWrench@lemmy.world avatar

Agreed. It’s not cowardly or “anti-competitive” to choose to avoid stepping in crap. Because that’s what Facebook and Twitter are. Single ownership of an entire social media is a terrible idea, because that platform will always be promoting and protecting the interests of its owners, not its users.

FlashMobOfOne,
@FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world avatar

Exactly.

I’m not sure why anyone would look at Facebook at this point and not think they’re coming to manipulate and destroy external platforms.

Bubs,
@Bubs@lemmy.world avatar

Well maybe it is anti-competitve, but anyway competition is what leads to shady tactics like meta are using. The point of the fediverse is cooperation, and absolutely avoid competition

protogen32, (edited )

Stupid idea: Could a server like lemmy.world pretend to have a very popular post by faking interaction with it to get it to show up to everyone using threads? It seems like it would be doable to run a server that allows for vote and comment manipulation, allowing for anyone to get anything to show up on threads. This could be bad for meta, as any actual user posts would be overshadowed by fake posts/spam from federated instances. I have no idea about how lemmy works, but anyone could make a server that would be running modificated code, right?

Quinnel,

Your intuition is correct. Someone could certainly modify their backend to create faulty data with the intention of sharing it across platforms. There’s no real standard for preventing that right now as far as I know.

spader312,

Maybe we need a system like email to flag bad actors and give them a ‘reputation’

LUHG_HANI,
@LUHG_HANI@lemmy.world avatar

This is exactly what we need. All admins need to see it.

  • 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