Made an account here because of it; lemmy.world was my first server and I’m fairly against any federation with meta or any tech giant. Tolerance paradox applies here too!
I want to know what you guys are talking about, and I think a get the gist of it, but my lord, do I feel old and don’t understand actually most of those words. Is there a “explain to me like I’m 5” place I could ask what are those federations and threads?
I’m running a small Gotosocial based instance and will be defederating simply because I’m afraid of the bandwidth and general load when like there is 1+ billion new users federating via Threads.
Just wanted to ask, but how do you defederate a non federated platform like threads? Does it just block the website and its links on this instance?
Edit: nevermind apparently they also used ActivityPub so it makes sense. But as a non microblogging website like lemmy that is more like reddit than Twitter, what does defederation mean?
To protect our data? They can create stealth instances and get the same data. I think we have to accept and be mindful that the things we share on the fediverse can be exploited by people we don’t like.
To exclude their users? I understand they have partnered with Namecheap to offer users customized instances with their own domain. Is it even a technical possibility to exclude all their users’ instances?
To make a statement? Okay, but then we need to do more than just defederate.
I don’t see a point in defederating. As long as the only data they get is the content of my posts and votes and replies I don’t care. More people in the fediverse strengthens it and splitting up into kingdoms is basically what we have now. Defederation should be done only if being federated is harmful to the users here.
This article has been circulating around the fediverse and I think it greatly illustrates why it’s so important to defederate from large corporations before they can get a foothold. It’s about so much more than just them getting our data.
In 2013, Google realised that most XMPP interactions were between Google Talk users anyway.
Isn’t this what actually killed XMPP? XMPP still works, is still viable. But everyone stopped using it. That’s got more to do with Facebook than Google, imho.
Yes. What they specifically did though was extend the protocol so that anyone who wasn’t using their version of XMPP via Google Talk would be incompatible or seem “broken” when it really wasn’t. It’s just that they were using non-standard features, both incentivizing people to just switch to Google Talk and for development on the core protocol to slow down.
I bet money Threads is going to do the same thing. They’ll introduce Threads only features that don’t work with all the standard Activitypub implementations, causing frustration with Thread users and putting pressure on people to just jump ship to Threads from standard Activitypub implementations.
Okay but how does this protect the protocol? What is the difference between us defederating them, and what you describe which is essentially them defederating us? Why would they bother in the first place, then? I don’t really think any of this is about us, but rather about Twitter and Google.
Like, does it endanger the HTTP protocol that we exchange HTTP data with them?
I think it’s about keeping the userbase on ActivityPub as much as possible. When meta will start doing ActivityPub and probably change it, everyone will need to follow because Meta will own all the userbase and “subreddit”.
At some point, they will decide to drop ActivityPub because it’s not good enough for what they want to do. Just like what Google did to XMPP. And maybe Google was right about XMPP, I don’t know.
Another reason is what you are saying, a personnal battle against Meta and big corp.
At the end of the day, will anything the fediverse Admin do will matter ? Only time will tell I guess.
One key difference with HTTP is just like TCP. Everyone uses it so it’s much harder to just change it and fuck everyone else. ActivityPub is an easier target for this strategy.
Of course you don’t. I’m sure 95% of people don’t. Most people don’t bother taking a stand on things unless it affects something more substantial like their wallets.
How is defederating going to help here? I’m genuinely asking. Doesn’t that just stop their content from showing on our feeds? It shouldn’t affect the amount of user data they can collect which isn’t much anyways because we’re not using their proprietary software.
My understanding is that people on exploding heads for example can still read these comments too. They just can’t reply. Or they can but we don’t see their replies. Only the people that federate with them do.
Meta is a threat to the privacy of fediverse users, if there are fediverse instances that remain federated with Meta.
Ross Schulman, senior fellow for decentralization at digital rights nonprofit the Electronic Frontier Foundation, notes that if Threads emerges as a massive player in the fediverse, there could be concerns about what he calls “social graph slurping." Meta will know who all of its users interact with and follow within Threads, and it will also be able to see who its users follow in the broader fediverse. And if Threads builds up anywhere near the reach of other Meta platforms, just this little slice of life would give the company a fairly expansive view of interactions beyond its borders.
Then Meta would help everyone cope with the extra workload … then help some more with a few changes … then offer some new features … then help with increased usage … then offer more features … then push out the smaller instances and take over everything … then wall off ActivityPub … then start charging people and advertisers … then make billions … then watch users rebel and start a new system and repeat it all again in 10 or 20 years.
Good-faith question for you admins to laymen like myself; what do you believe you are protecting yourselves from by blocking Threads? Isn’t the nature of the Fediverse resistant, if not immune, to corotate shenanigans? Isn’t the only thing you’re accomplishing by defederating Theads is that you’re just making yourselves invisible to a large userbase who are too lazy to care about their own personal data?
Personal take - I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume the meta will operate in good faith. I don’t have confidence that they will moderate their users, and I believe their only interest will be in slurping up 3rd party data to make their platform more appealing and decrease the chance a user will go elsewhere to find things. They don’t want you going anywhere else for that juicy ad revenue.
Yeah I’m assuming they’re operating is as-bad of faith as possible myself.
As far as moderating their users, I’m don’t necessarily know to what extent you mean. But I would assume that since they’re a publicly traded company who wants to foster their relationships with ad providers, that they wouldn’t let it devolve into something newsworthy; that’s bad for business.
Sorry if I’m repeating myself too much (I mentioned this in another comment below), but if the goal is to grow the non-corporate Fediverse and encourage privacy and self-hosting, I would imagine that the best way to do that is to connect with the corporate Fediverse and proselytize the benefits of moving off of Threads. If we tested the waters and decided it wasn’t for us after some interaction, I imagine the non-corporate federation could grow immensely by that point. Whereas if we cut ourselves off now, I fear we will actually drive people to Threads, and make it nearly impossible to convince people to get off of Threads.
For moderating users, I mean all the bullshit conspiracy theories. My dad lives on Facebook and has gone completely off the deep end, we need to start actively fighting against this instead of being tolerant.
If you spend any amount of time in the comment sections on Facebook or Instagram these days it’s pretty clear that meta doesn’t have the capacity or will to actually moderate. You can report things to them only to get a response a few weeks later that they didn’t look into it but also didn’t remove the content.
I’m aware of that concept, but I’m having a hard time understanding how that applies to the Fediverse. It seems like we have an inherent protection from that tactic, even if we disregard defederation as an option.
That actually doesn’t seem to give any context of HOW it could work for the Fediverse. All I see is “we are certain to lose”, but doesn’t go into what sort of mechanisms or tactics could be implemented to do a takeover.
What I would do if I were Zuck is the following: First I’d federate and leech a little bit off the pre-existing community. Then, I’d start buffing out my version. I could outpace the open source team easily if I wanted, adding things like video hosting, that are too resource-intensive for smaller Instances. I’d basically compete in features and polish, which are very important to less tech savvy consumers.
In the meantime, I’d be tinkering with my own Instance, seeing how much more data can be squeezed out of the Fediverse. I’d probably buy some of the largest Instances and assimilate them, just to keep the rest of the space feeling small compared to mine. Let brand loyalty do the rest.
Any time they come up with a new feature I like, I take it. I don’t share mine though, I don’t share anything I’m not forced to. The goal is to cap their growth, basically squashing awareness of them by making sure that when average people think Fediverse, they think Meta. The rest of it is just weird tech hobby junk for nerds.
You know how Apple has extended SMS with iMessage? Like that.
In other words, they take something open and established like activitypub, and then build all sorts of cool features on top of it, but those features impose lock-in.
Eg. Maybe they make it so there’s some way of attaching media directly to posts, but only if the post is both posted and viewed from a Meta instance. And then, in a few years once they’ve become dominant due to everyone switching over to their platform out of fomo of those features, they break compatibility with activitypub and ruin the underlying structure of the fediverse.
Wouldn’t that just mean Facebook splits away from the fediverse into their own thing? The rest of the fediverse that don’t want anything to do with them would still keep existing just like it does now?
To be honest I really don’t mind if the users that want to use Facebook leave Lemmy and go to Threads. That just means that there’s less people here but the ones that stay have values closer to mine.
EXACTLY. Quality over Quantity. I mean even Reddit pre-exodus, like there was great intelligent conversations and threads… but sooooo much garbage in between. The signal to noise ratio sucked. I’m loving the small but high quality posts and conversations im seeing on Lemmy in comparison.
For this reason I tend to lean towards defederating because I genuine don’t think your average Facebook user brings much value here - quite the opposite.
I just feel like people don’t quite understand what defederating actually does and I don’t claim to undestand either. However the little that I think I do undestand leads me to believe defederating isn’t going to “cut them out” the way we’re hoping. They can still see all the content here.
They could still be see the content by creating another instance, or by getting it from lemmy.ca directly. I doubt they’ll do that though, especially with Lemmy. Lemmy communities look weird when seen from mastodon, and I doubt they’d look much better from threads.net.
Also I hate how they called it Threads. That’s already a word used for other things in this space. Theres a thing called the threadiverse, and it doesn’t include Facebook/meta/instagram threads?
Every network that wants to stay decentralized has to guard against anyone gaining a controlling interest.
Once an instance gets big enough, it generates a kind of gravity, attracting not just the majority of new users, but tempting everyone else. And a few years or decades down the line, we end up with a centralized service. History has shown that anyone with the capacity to be a controlling interest eventually exercises that control to serve its own ends.
I don’t know if anyone is discussing the potential problems of existing good-faith instances becoming too large, but I think we should be. A Meta controlled instance would instantaneously dwarf any existing instance and maybe the totality of all instances.
Yes, I’ve started looking for instances that I think represent the “natural home” for communities I’m interested in. For example, I was subscribed to a lemmy.world community for the go programming language. Then I discovered the programming.dev instance. They also host a go programming community, so I switched.
Then I realized that I was likely to join a bunch of communities on that instance, so I just joined the instance directly. I think that reduces the federation burden, but it also helps me manage my personal feed because now things are grouped by more general categories.
The only thing I don’t like about doing things that way is the multiple inboxes. It would be nice if the client would collect all the inboxes into one.
The problem is that it only works if the ideal scenario occurs being that we all work together to make things better. Corporate interaction in open source has shown that embrace, extend, extinguish is a very successful strategy.
Would we be harming the idea of a completely open network? No doubt. The question is whether or not allowing corporations would be better or worse for us in the long run.
Sure, but the Linux kernel is an extremely time consuming thing to maintain and is not worth privatizing for most companies as it rarely is a source of profit instead of infrastructure. There is little competitive edge to doing so. Meta however has a very good reason to bring in a bunch of new users to their platform and theirs only. Considering their history, it is reasonable to be distrustful.
A lot of us just left a site because it was ruined by corporate greed. I don’t think corporations belong in the fediverse. If there’s a vote, I vote for defedding with Threads.
I, for one, vote in support of defederation from Threads. No reason to allow Meta to use our content to boost engagement on their for-profit platform. And pull users away from places like Lemmy at that.
Add comment