how to block meta from mastodon
2y 11mon ago by lemmy.world/u/downpunxx in technology
Embrace, extend, extinguish. Only proven way to destroy decentralized, free, open source solutions.
First stage embrace might not even be malicious, but with corporations it will eventually lead to someone thinking: how can we monetize our position. It is just nature how business works.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
It's worth pointing out that the wiki article lists several examples of Microsoft using this approach but I wouldn't class many of them as successful.
Not only was it not very successful, it's an old outdated Microsoft playbook from the 90s/early 00s and was targeted at closed source competitors and freeware, not open source software where you can just fork out a separate version.
By all means block Meta instances if you want, but they have 3 billion users, they definitely don't give a shit about a "competitor" with a few hundred thousand users. If simply the presence of a corporation in the Fediverse is enough to destroy it, then it wasn't going to last long anyways. It's embarassing that "embrace, extend, extinguish" caught on around here just because it's a catchy alliteration.
Let me offer a rebuttal. The fact that this playbook even exists and is well-known is a cause for concern. Yes, Microsoft’s campaign wasn’t very successful, but that doesn’t mean Meta won’t try or learn from Microsoft’s mistakes. I ask: is the probability of this happening non-zero, and if so, is it lower than you’re comfortable with? For me, and many others here, that answer is no.
Moreover, this is a greater problem: Meta is well-known and has practically infinite marketing budget. They can spin their app as the de facto, causing many people to lose control of their data. By association, some people will blame the Fediverse and not Meta. Defederating signals that we are not willing to participate with them and tells potential Fediverse users that they will not be able to engage with us—and whatever they decide, we cannot impact more.
The crux of my argument is risk management. Defederated is a conservative measure to prevent possible issues in the future.
Honestly this is just pure paranoia because nobody has given a solid reason as to why they would give a single shit about the few hundred thousand users here. Your only argument is "well it exists, so maaaybe they'll use it but better" which has no basis. As for losing control of your data, you have no control of your data here. It's public information. Any person, corporation, computer literate cat, etc can already scrape everything you post here. Don't mistake anonymity for data privacy.
Like I said, block em, defederate, whatever measures you want to take are an option, but for the love of god let's just stop parroting nonsense at eachother because it sounds clever. I came here to get away from reddit culture.
I just wanted to say, I am by no means technical but your position is exactly what I was thinking, if an open source project can't survive when it's competitors start using it, then it's never going to survive. The whole point is for it to be interoperable, resilient, and antifragile, and there are plenty of open source projects that achieved that. Competitors switching over to open source is a natural progression of any open source project if one assumes it is successful.
100% agreed with this. The scaremongering just makes no sense.
By all means block Meta instances if you want, but they have 3 billion users, they definitely don’t give a shit about a “competitor” with a few hundred thousand users.
If they don't give a shit then why do they add federation feature at all? It doesn't make sense.
Right now it's only supported for Instagram accounts right? So slap in ActivityPub and you've got an already working way to extend your app. It's easy, it's fast development, and it's cheap. It makes tons of sense.
Also, Meta and the rest of FAANG are a company of a bunch of nerds with a history of open sourcing software. This isn't some crazy play, this is completely normal for them.
Yeah and it’s also normal for them to act like sociopaths and shrug and say “sorry, this is just how capitalism works” when it gets exposed how cynically awful they been behaving.
There is zero evidence ethics will be followed here, Silicon Valley has spent decades building a good argument the precise opposite will happen.
What does ethics have to do with any of this? Like you said, it's all capitalism. The total amount of users in the fediverse is a rounding error on their 10-K. Why would they care about stealing the userbase?
Corporations don't act ethically unless they can monetize it or they're regulated.
Counterpoint: it’s not about capturing the current audience so much as heading a threat off at the pass.
I’m not going to argue way or other re: defederation. Just putting myself in their shoes and looking at the field they’re entering. They likely recognize there’s a brief window right now to capture twitter’s disaffected audience as they stumble while a nontrivial subset of those users are exploring open-source, non-corporate alternatives.
It makes perfect sense for them to cast the widest net they can in this moment. And it also makes sense for them to try to stifle the non-corporate side before it has a chance to gain any solid footing.
There are no users “exploring open source alternatives.” Have you seen the Lemmy signup flow? It’s a complete shitshow that probably turns away 95% of people to begin with.
Facebook almost certainly doesn’t see Lemmy and Mastodon as a threat or competitor. They adopted ActivityPub because it’s nice, and they’ll move on as they need to scale, and Lemmy and Mastodon will continue to survive as they always have.
What’s 95% of zero?
Seriously though I am one person seeking open source alternatives and I came here because others showed me the way.
The number is not zero, and the cultural moment is ripe for non-corporate options unless corporates recapture the audience before they’ve even lost them.
That’s the crux of my perspective.
Exactly. Which is why I believe that all this fearmongering is because of Meta's reputation (rightfully so) rather than because Meta actually has a plan to destroy the fediverse. And it's not the like the fediverse can be actually destroyed, people can always start new instances at any time.
My take was that most people 1) don't want Meta/Facebook spam - low effort memes, propaganda, etc. and 2) don't want their content to be used by Meta. The former seems pretty easy - just defederate and you don't see any of their crap. The second is sort of a gray area... Whether or not you are diametrically opposed to Meta/Facebook or not, once you post your content to a public site, it's available. I haven't been here long, but defederation seems to work both ways, so FB would have to scrape content from known instances to get that content unless I'm mistaken.
FB could smoke any instance by DDOSing scrapes whether intended or otherwise, but once you post your data on a public forum, Meta could theoretically use it.
But to your comment - I don't see what starting a new instance would do for anyone for #2. Any new instance is discoverable by nature, so FB can come knocking at any time for content whether you defederate or not.
- As if Lemmy currently isn't overrun with low effort memes? Have you seen all those cans of beans running amok here?
- I imagine there are many parties already scraping content from the fediverse as we speak - that's the nature of public web content.
I’m just here for the beans
As far as (1) goes, 90% of the content on Lemmy is just a Lemmy circlejerk, the remaining 10% is memes. What influx of "low effort content" could possibly make the discussions on Lemmy worse than they already are?
As far as (2) goes, you realize your data on Lemmy is open to everyone to scrape, not just Meta? Every single one of your upvotes is public.
Not only was it not very successful, it’s an old outdated Microsoft playbook from the 90s/early 00s and was targeted at closed source competitors and freeware, not open source software where you can just fork out a separate version.
In Microsoft's case I agree. However Google successfully used EEE to essentially kill of XMPP where they initially added XMPP support to Google Talk, then extended it with their own features which weren't up to spec, and then later killed off XMPP support.
So when's extinguish come in? XMPP still exists, google dropping support didn't kill XMPP, it just doesn't work with their app anymore. They weren't trying to kill XMPP, they were just going what Google does and dropping projects as soon as they aren't profitable.
Yes XMPP still exists but I'd argue compared to previously standard XMPP is no longer as widely spread. Where as previously you would have people talking to each other over different XMPP services, that kind of federation no longer exists. For example WhatsApp supports XMPP but good luck trying to talk to WhatsApp from another client.
XMPP was never popular to begin with, because it's a messaging service that relies on the people close to you using it, which was rare before Google Talk integrated. Corporate run apps brought direct and indirect usage, you can't argue this is an overall loss when they pulled away from XMPP, at worst it's the same as if they never integrated. The same is true for ActivityPub, whether everyone defederates or blocks Meta instances now or they stop supporting ActivityPub later makes no tangible difference.
If they don't give a shit about the fediverse why do they want to join it? Only Facebook can win from this.
Easy integration outside Instagram. They're rushing to market to head off Twitter and the app only works for Instagram users, way easier to extend that by integrating open source software than rebuilding their own proprietary software from scratch. They can win without destroying it.
Google successfully did this to XMPP.
https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
Thank you for this article. It shows exactly what's Facebook's plan. They will join in, make their own implementation that doesn't work well, pass the blame to the other platforms that use the protocol*, which in turn pressures them to debug and slow down themselves around Facebook's stuff, and then they cut them off entirely.
The correct attitude is to extinguish Facebook now. They're not welcome.
*And yes, this would work. Users are absolutely gullible about this shit, even without ever being told anything directly. Look at Apple users and their blue/green speech bubble thing. Every single flaw with the system is Apple's fault - but the dumbass cultminded users see the green speechbubble and blame the other users for the flaws, not Apple. They literally just did the stupid tribalism comic and it worked.
I’m not going to say you are wrong, but I have yet to meet a single fucking person that actually cares about bubble colors.
I hear this parroted so often, but never see it myself. Didn’t see it when all I had used was Android devices, didn’t see it when I tried an iPhone and got involved in their own communities.
Wait, so Apple intentionally made iOS messages highly incompatible with Android users?
XMPP still exists. Google dropped support for it, that's definitely not killing it. Google drops support for projects all the time by the way, it's kind of their thing.
Google dropping support for XMPP is what put it one foot in the grave. They abused the protocol to gain the lion's share of users for Google Talk, and then cut off any resistance that remained. It exists still, technically, but when's the last time you heard about or used it? I only know about it because EVE Online players used it for large group text communication before Discord became a thing.
XMPP still exists in the same way that critically endangered animals still exist: barely and by the adamant will of some dedicated few.
XMPP wasn't even remotely popular until Google integrated with it, I tried Jabber back in the day lol. Google brought the users it lost, you can't argue this was an attempt to kill it. At worst it's the same as before Google integrated.
That's the problem though. If XMPP had grew organically then it would fare much better. With how it happened, XMPP's growth was mostly because of Google, and that put a lot of pressure to other servers and the protocol's development to cater to them, because they had the majority of the users in their platform.
It is absurd to think XMPP would have gained traction without Google. And it is an objectively shitty protocol, so Google dropping it was the right move. It is kind of weird to see people holding up Google dropping XMPP as some horrifying example of embrace, extend, extinguish, when anyone that's actually developed software with the protocol wants it to die in a burning fire.
How convoluted the protocol is doesn't really matter as long as someone creates an easy tool to spin up your own server.
I think the XMPP comparison stills stands: Google was able to steer how the protocol developed, or which version of the protocol people used because they had the majority of the users and other servers wanted to still be able to interact with them.
Suppose that Facebook joins the fediverse and most large instances federate with them. All is great, then Facebook starts to make demands to other instances in order to keep federating with them, e.g. no posts about protests. Because a large share of ActivityPub activity will be on Threads, naive users would prefer instances that federate with it, so instance mods will be incentivized to comply with Facebook's demands to attract new users and maintain their current one and... you see where this is going. The only way to deal with this is to deny Facebook this kind of leverage in the first place, either by blocking them instantly or at their first mishap or demand.
so instance mods will be incentivized to comply with Facebook’s demands to attract new users and maintain their current one
This is where your argument falls apart. Why? There is no incentive for instance mods to want to grow their instances exponentially.
If Facebook's ActivityPub grows to be incompatible with the existing implementation, who cares? So what if you run a Mastodon instance and aren't getting millions of new users a day?
This is much ado about nothing. While there is a shared platform, enjoy the ride, and if they don't want to play by your rules anymore, there's no harm to anyone in saying goodbye and staying your course.
It's true that instances don't need to grow exponentially (or at all), but most mods/admins want to maintain their community and not see it dwindle down to nothing. People used to interacting with instances run by Facebook or other corporations (which most of their friends or family will use) might get upset if the federation link with them gets severed. If they do, they'll either pressure the instance admin to comply with the corporations and federate with them again, or switch to the corporations' instances. Both of these scenarios are bad for the future of the fediverse.
I'm not sure how things are going to go with Meta and federation and EEE could happen and definitely see some of the concerns, but the way people are just pointing to that XMPP article in every thread as some slam dunk argument I think is overstating it. It's one example and there are lots of other considerations around it and different context that make it so it's not something that can really be directly mapped onto this situation.
Things may go south with Meta and federation but the constant pointing to XMPP is not really making a solid argument IMO.
I think it's all besides the point anyway. Some servers will federate with Meta and any other big companies that enter the Fediverse. Some wont. Meta is big enough not to care, and the big Masto servers are also going to do what they want to do and allow federation. And if there's desire from Mastodon users to connect with Threads and follow accounts there people will move to servers that allow that. And then there may be communities that aren't federated with Meta that are also great and strong. We'll see how it plays out, but small Masto/Lemmy servers choosing to not Federate I don't think will have much impact broadly speaking on how this goes. But by the same token if servers don't want to federate with Meta that's totally cool too and I respect that as well. We'll have some parts of the Fediverse in the future that connect with the big platforms and some that don't. That's the path we're on now either way — some will federate, some won't — and people can choose which part they want to be part of.
Personally I think the Fediverse and ActivityPub will be more resilient than XMPP and will be durable against EEE. Especially if other players like Tumblr and Wordpress jump in that will strengthen interoperable ActivityPub even more. If people want to not federate with Meta that's cool and I definitely see some good points around it (but not so much the much heralded XMPP article) but I think the Fediverse will be fine either way and ActivityPub's future is looking stronger than ever.
This is pure speculation at best, but since we're speculating I strongly disagree. The internet overall didn't care about open source software in the early 00s, and most people still don't today. Corporate freeware that can spend more on a polished product is going to win over the general population every time.
Talking about any alternative scenario is always speculation, but I believe the "How to kill decentralized networks" post that's been going around lately puts it nicely:
One thing is sure: if Google had not joined, XMPP would not be worse than it is today.
You missed rest of my comment. You, and this article, are speculating on made up assumptions, and frankly silly assumptions. Open source software is almost never more popular than freeware counterparts. Saying "oh maybe it would've been this time" is ridiculous.
Can you explain how Google helped XMPP even in the slightest way? Because that's what I'm arguing against.
The only thing I can come up with is the increased popularity, which is shaky because tech-naive users wouldn't know or care about Google Talk's underlying protocol. Also, considering the rest of what Google did with XMPP, like making it hard for their servers to be interoperable with others, or their slow adoption of new features, it's clear to me that Google getting involved was a net negative for XMPP. I don't think I'm assuming anything to arrive on that conclusion.
I never argued that Google helped XMPP, I'm arguing that it isn't applicable to the "extend, embrace, extinguish" crap that people keep parroting like it's an actual playbook used by tech companies and not just some silly nonsense created by some middle manager at Microsoft 30 years ago lol. The users Google brought they took, at worst it was net neutral.
like making it hard for their servers to be interoperable with others
Because they forked their own deviations of XMPP to work with the updates made to Google Talk. It's original state was left untouched and by no means "extinguished". This is just another example of corporate freeware winning over open sourced because of a more polished product.
their slow adoption of new features
I assume you mean Jingle which they adopted in 2007? Why would slow adoption of XMPP features into Google Talk affect non Google Talk XMPP users? They were always free to use XMPP without Google Talk, just as we're free to stay on Lemmy/kbin/Mastadon without Threads.
I never argued that Google helped XMPP, I’m arguing that it isn’t applicable to the “extend, embrace, extinguish” crap that people keep parroting
I can agree to that. Does Facebook want to join the fediverse with the sole reason to kill it? Probably not -- but the fediverse stands to gain little to nothing from their involvement, so we should be as vigilant as possible with them. If the result from that is that some people end up believing that Meta's out to EEE the fediverse then eh, whatever.
I'm all for being vigilant and skeptical, but I was personally hoping this would be a place where people practiced more critical thinking skills than Reddit. We've seen what misinformation based paranoia and outrage does, and allowing that mindset here regardless of the direction just furthers it in my opinion.
Now that being said, Facebook helped build that culture of misinformation and outrage so, you know, can't help but feel a bit of dramatic irony lol, but I still think it's worth trying to shut down and work to make this a place where people think through things logically.
App I work on, we're replacing XMPP with messages over push/rest/websocket. XMPP is not fun to use compared to newer stuff.
enthusiast dev here, can vouch, having to make a XMPP library for myself for a bot I ran, I HATE the protocol with a burning passion, it's weird and not how you would expect it to be. I'm sure the complexity of the standard didn't help against its downfall. That being said, fully think that it will be harmful in the longrun of Activity Pub for Meta to be jumping in. but there will be some enthusiasts that still use it regardless.
That's partly because of actions taken by various governments. Who knows what tech would look like today if Microsoft from the 90s forced us all into Internet Explorer.
Also, more successful examples would be Google. They have done this very thing several times but then keep messing it up lol
It looks like articles today are saying that Meta is delaying integrating ActivityPub at launch.
That said, I'm not seeing how we get to the last E, extinguish. By its very nature, ActivityPub is decentralized to avoid total control. So even if Meta embraces the technology and wants to monetize it (because capitalism, of course), extending ActivityPub would (hypothetically) be open source - or they would fork it, diverging and making their version closed, and otherwise not function in full with other ActivityPub instances (like with kbin, Lemmy, and Mastodon). Without buying the platform from the developers in full, I don't see how ActivityPub or the greater Fediverse dies. And I could just be missing something obvious, so if you can explain how we get there, I would really like to hear and understand.
I guess the only way I could see it is if Threads got so popular that people literally stopped using the other apps - but I also don't see that happening, because anyone already using stuff like Mastodon are using it because Twitter, Facebook, etc, suck ass and they've moved away from sites like that.
EDIT: Thanks to the one person that actually replied, I saw I was on the right track at the end, but failed to see the obvious (as I assumed).
It’s hard to predict but the extinguish part would come from bigger non-Threads instances implementing compatibility with Thread-only extensions (in the interest of their users, or for money) and fragmenting the community. Threads then becomes the defacto ActivityPub standard. Maybe some instances stay true to the standard but with extremely reduced communities because now they can’t see what other instances are publishing. So now you have to decide between your ideals and your social network. At best, you’re back to square 0.
It happens in the extend part.
Large corporation will have much more resources, they will implement features and refactoring, which small open source teams do not have capability to implement. They will start pulling users because they support features that other do not.
This also means that they will start getting control.
And then finally they just cut the communication, and split the community. All the way they can claim to be working "for the community"
It happens in the extend part.
This is it right here.
If you need a real-world example look at the original web browsers:
NCSA Mosaic (the very first web browser) fully supported what would be later known as HTTP verison .9 . There was universal compatibility because there was only one browser supporting HTTP. Later Netscape Navigator would come on the scene and add functionality that was not supported in Mosaic (like the <blink> tag for example), but nothing hugely breaking page views between the two browsers.
Fast forward to Internet Explorer v3, v4 and v5 where MS would not only show all the pages that the prior browsers would, but they EXTENDED by letting HTML still work without following all the same standards. It was easier to write pages for IE than it was to the specification. Then EXTENDED again by MS added ActiveX to web sites meaning now ONLY MS IE could display these pages, and for a time that meant only Windows computers could. This is the Extinguish part.
The "Extend" step gets adopted because its attractive to users.
Here's a non-computer analogy:
Lets say your current car get 25MPG. Now lets says that Shell come out with a gasoline that would let your same car go 40MPG with zero changes. Just buy Shell gas now at nearly the same price as anyone else's and you get significantly more range. Most people would do it. Moreover, Shell buys Honda and starts manufacturing cars designed to work on that same new Shell gas could go 60mpg with even more power! So when you go to buy your next car 5 years later after using the gas, you don't want to turn down 60MPG with more power. That Shell/Honda looks very attractive! All this time all the other gas stations have been going out of business because few people want to pay nearly the same amount for gasoline that only gets a fraction of the range. In the end, ONLY Shell gasoline is being sold, and nearly everyone drives a Shell/Honda to get the most benefit. This is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
Took us a while to shake off IE monopoly, only to squander it and now we have chromium (and to lesser extend, WebKit) monopoly. It's not as horrible as the IE monopoly yet, but we're currently in the "extend" stage here with Google forcing standard that benefits them and inconveniences their competitors.
but we’re currently in the “extend” stage here with Google forcing standard that benefits them and inconveniences their competitors.
A tiny bit, but I don't think its the same thing. First, the web runs fine without Chrome. Firefox is proof of that. Second, the source code is Open Source for at least a version of Chrome, so if Google does silly stuff like trying to Extend, we can (and have) make our own version cutting that garbage out and compiling our own.
Yes, but it doesn't solve browser monoculture issue where webdevs only target chromium/webkit when building their apps, which slowly kill firefox and make it much harder for a new browser engine tech to compete. When other browser engines are dead, the web "standard" will be fully controlled by google. No amount of forking will help because the web consortium is controlled by the big browser makers, and when firefox dies (and mozilla dies), it will be fully controlled by corporation (google), with microsoft and apple playing some minor roles without mozilla because mozilla actually has quite a big influence in the consortium despite its smaller userbase.
I actually witnessed IE's rise, leaving netscape navigator and opera in dust, and then open source phoenix (later firefox) rising from ashes, steadily taking back user share. Google chrome took a good chunk too and by that time IE was done and desperate enough to give in and use chromium framework.
There was a point in time I thought it's impossible, the close source monstrosity with neverending standards incompatibilities will stay on quick launchers forever but it did not. What a journey.
Anyone here remembered that Internet Explorer is Evil! site? The person who made that website complained about those tactics such as the ActiveX stuff and also made fun of Microsoft for doing it.
It doesn't seem at all plausible to me that meta threads will pull users away from mastodon/pleroma/misskey/etc. though. If they "extend" the federation protocol to the point they become incompatible with the rest of these implementations, they will just go away and we're back to where we were before they started federating.
They don’t pull users away from the competition, they grow their own user base much faster than the competition, the result being that most of the popular content is on their platform. If you want to follow that celebrity/ influencer / news organization/ sports reporter/ politician, you need to join threads.
But that's already true for Twitter.
And if people weren't looking for a reason to leave Twitter, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The point is that this is how decentralized / open standards have been broken and made proprietary in the past.
If you think the aforementioned celebrities/influencers/news orgs/etc. are going to choose the fediverse instead of Threads or (I think more likely) BlueSky, that might make sense. I don't see that happening though. What might instead happen is something like this:
Potential fediverse user: "I heard that Facebook's new twitter competitor can work with these existing sites. So I can make an account on one of those and follow Celebrity X and Politician Y without making a Meta account."
Potential fediverse admin: "Well yeah, but you can't follow them from my instance. Or any of these other instances. You see, back in the 90s there was this concept called embrace, extend extinguish..."
No longer a potential fediverse user: "Oh, I guess I'll just make a Meta/Bluesky account instead then."
Dosen't need to actively "stole" users from the other communities, but if new users have to choose between the independent supported and development instances and the corporate supported with marketing and flashy UI they are going to choose the corporate one. Eventually the great majority of users are under meta's control and the content is generated there, and you better start complying or get defederated by meta.
Some users will be used to their content by then and may be tempted to move to their platform.
There's also the tons of news users interested in the Fediverse who get sucked into the marketing of "big tech + Fediverse" and basically just getting slurped up into some inevitable twitter sequel. So it's existing users and potential new users.
Exactly it’s like selling junk food marketed as health food, you can say it doesn’t stop anyone from eating healthy food but if the junk food is marketed as healthy food (looking at you sugary cereals) than it can steal positive energy from the healthy food movement, gain a false sense of healthiness via associating itself with legitimately healthy food, and distract or disillusion vast swathes of people from actually trying healthy food in the first place.
Techbros being like “we should let tech companies try again (?!?) to make a non-toxic thing out of our idea” is just another case of relatively smart people being dumb af about their privilege because let’s face it, a lot of this is just resume building or a DIY hobby for these folks. They don’t have the same things to lose that trans, black, queer or any other harassed/targeted minority has in coming here. They don’t have a horse in the game whether legitimate communities win or awful corporations do, they still win in the end because both use social media software though the latter pays much better….
i.e.: The IE approach. Take an open standard (HTML), then fill in the gaps it's missing with proprietary components (ActiveX), wait until your solutions become entrenched, then start doing evil stuff (implementing HTML slightly wrong so that developers have to do extra work to support compliant browsers).
Right, and that's exactly how IE/Edge is the one globally dominant browser it is today. Oh no, wait, that's the very standards compliant Chrome
Wow, you really got me there. I had no idea that IE was no longer the dominant browser by usershare. That 13-year stretch of singular dominance may as well have never happened at all since it didn't literally last forever 🙄
And... yes, Chrome is very standards compliant, isn't it? Isn't it great how they publish excellent standards like FLoC & Manifest V3 without any regard for pushback from external vendors & web engineers? It's a very not evil thing that they're doing with their very not entrenched product.
Yes, google, the beacon of privacy, has decided to cancel FLoC. See? Google is actually listening to the web community's plea. What's that in the latest version of Chrome just released globally a few weeks ago? Ad Topics? No, it's totally unrelated to FLoC, no need to worry about that, for realsies!
Google argues that it is mandatory that it builds a user tracking and advertising system into Chrome, and the company says it won't block third-party cookies until it accomplishes that.
The internet is saved thanks to Google's commitment to pushing forward with new standards
I was struggling to get all the way there initially, but that makes sense. Thanks for actually taking the time to respond!
I doubt that is the plan. The Fediverse is tiny, even after the recent growth. Prior to June it was basically just Mastodon, and I doubt Meta is agile enough to start this from scratch in response to the June growth. This is a lot of effort to take down a competitor that's widely considered to be rough around the edges, and is only just now hitting 2m active monthly users.
Realistically Threads has been in the works for a while as a way to eat Twitter's market share while Twitter destroys itself. I suspect they see value in the ActivityPub protocol in the same way Yahoo saw value in email in the 90s. Regardless of whether EEE is their intention or not, Meta's presence in the Fediverse is going to have major implications for its long term stability.
EDIT: on further reflection, I suspect the value they see is pressuring other would-be competitors to also implement ActivityPub. I suspect they do genuinely want to grow the Fediverse... because doing so would increase the amount of data they could collect and sell from it.
On embrace phase the intention is not malicious, they probably want things to grow. Corporations just in long run will eventually lead to someone asking "how can we capitalize this" and this lead the FOSS part of things to be cut out, and destroying the protocol at that point.
Fediverse should defederate every corporation and just grow naturally.
Big corpos don't want to take it over, they want it gone.
https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
Unpopular opinion but defederating Meta is a terrible idea. What are people thinking will happen? Allow them to federate and you'll have mastodon users able to view and interact with posts from Threads without needing to be concerned about ads or tracking, without giving over any more control of privacy than they would to any other fediverse instance, and without needing to possess accounts homed within the Meta infrastructure.
Defederate them, and anyone who wants to interact with anyone on threads will most likely need to maintain a presence on both and handover more personal data to Meta than they otherwise would.
Defederating is actively hostile to fediverse users.
The idea is that at first threads.net will seem "normal", like all the other fediverses
Then they start adding features that either break against other servers, or straight up aren't supported, making threads.net seem more enticing just because all the neat features aren't on the other sites.
Think how Internet Explorer killed Netscape with all the Page Load errors caused by ActiveX, yet everyone wanted ActiveX sites.
Once they've walked through the path of least resistance and grabbed the bulk of the traffic, they just defederate from everyone.
Yep - best option is to defederate them well before they gain traction & start creating problem by not contributing back to the protocol in a way that benefits everyone.
I think after the community got burned by Microsoft & then google we’re finally learning.
Couldn’t any instance or app do this already? Like #peertube does videos in a way that isn’t necessarily fully federated with #mastodon. We get partial functionality everywhere and some places will have some extra things. If it is popular enough, then add it to the standard and let everyone who wants it add the functionality.
People are concerned about Facebook/Meta trying to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish ActivityPub - if I've understood correctly.
People keep saying EEE as if that's a point in and of itself without really explaining how in this instance
If they become so ubiquitous that all you see are Threads messages, all they have to do is start adding their own extensions to ActivityPub and degrade the experience of everyone who is not using their app.
What kinds of extensions should the typical activitypub user be worried about? I don't care if Meta adds payments or virtual avatars or whatever--if the core functionality of the Threads app is simple microblogging, it should be perfectly interoperable with that side of the fediverse.
The more likely effect IMO (if Meta holds to their word on enabling federation on their side) is that other large social media companies (e.g. reddit, twitter) will feel pressured to federate and that will make the fediverse better, not worse.
My account is on kbin.social but I'm working on getting kbin self hosted. When I do, I'll absolutely be federating with Threads whether or not kbin.social does.
A cool post pops up in your feed. You click it. You are met with an overlay that says "Sorry, this post isn't compatible with your browser. Please log in to Threads."
Over half your feed are Threads posts.
Speculative example.
Embrace, they join the fediverse seemingly in good faith. Bringing their larger userbase to massively increase the size of the fediverse.
Extend, they add some features that are convenient when interacting with their base across the fediverse. But these conveniences require proprietary software integration.
Extinguish, once enough users and platforms are tied into the conveniences of extend, they use that to force compliance. Stricter and stricter rules on their proprietary software. Comply or die.
The fediverse won't be gone afterwards, but if it EEE works then we will end up very stifled.
The outcome then would be that Meta’s instance would be defederated/defederate itself - how would that be different from now?
They'd probably attract more people (even people that are here right now) before doing so. Thus creating another centralized platform.
If the Threads product was so superior, and Mastodon so unable to respond that millions would leave Mastodon - sure. I doubt it though..
You’re severely underestimating the budget Meta can throw at this. Mastodon/Lemmy/etc. right now are largely volunteer-run as opposed to full-time employees.
That argument suggests open source products couldn’t possibly compete with a closed-source alternative.
They can compete of they have the manpower to do so. Lemmy has literally only 2 devs. How many devs can Meta pay to work on Threads and outpace it?
Threads isn’t a Lemmy competitor - it competes with Mastodon
But they can easily implement Lemmy-like features on it or make another sister-app. It isn't hard to bruteforce such things when you have that much money and developers
I wouldn't underestimate them though. After all, they own some of the biggest social network platforms on the globe and have the formula to hook people up down to a t.
While Threads is federated social circles and communities will have time to form. Thread users will by nature of having the support of a corporate juggernaut, be the lions share of users on the 'verse. When threads pull the plug, the Fedverse becomes a ghost town overnight and everyone not on Threads will be forced to migrate if they want to keep their social circles and communities intact.
I think few people would migrate away in that scenario. Some might create additional accounts (none of this is zero-sum). It’s not unlikely that Mastodon itself will become bigger because of it, and it’ll get hard for Meta to unilaterally pull the plug - a bit like email.
Here is an example of a corpo dealing a blow to an open source project. The article covers an example of Microsoft and Google killing a competing open source project(s).
Most comprehensive article on this topic I've seen since this Meta shenanigan started. Thanks for the read
You're acting like there's only two situations: The entire Fediverse defederates with them, or the entire Fediverse federates with them. That's not the case.
I, personally, do not want to interact with anyone using Threads, because Meta has a proven history of poor moderation and of manipulating the narrative for political gain on Facebook and I see no reason to think they won't do the same here. I am not the only one who holds this opinion. Those of us who feel this way can use instances that defederate with them, and have our way.
If you want to interact with them, you can maintain an account on an instance that does federate with them. You do not need to have a Threads account, nor does anyone else.
meta is not here to promote open networks. They will do more harm than good. If you want to learn more about how google achieved it with the XMPP you can read the story here https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html written by one of the core developers.
This is an interesting article, but I don't think it's fair to blame Google for the death of XMPP. Google were the largest consumers of XMPP at one point, sure, but Google was in no way (and never has been) the market leader in communications applications. Google talk came and went, Hangouts came and went and so on. The argument of "When google pulled the plug, XMPP users had to use something else to keep in touch with friends" is equally true of Google messenger users as well. I don't know anyone that ever exclusively used a Google messenger app, now or then.
Google isn't entirely innocent here, they definitely didn't treat the protocol with the respect it deserved, but the development of XMPP was/is fraught with its own problems. I remember setting up an XMPP network for use in a small office as an internal chat tool, it was a nightmare of an experience. Different XMPP Clients had different levels of compatibility with different XMPP servers, many of the clients were just poor overall and the user-experience left a lot to be desired. All we wanted was a simple instant messenger for work, in the days before Slack and Teams. We ended up using OpenFire because it was developed in tandem with Spark, it was basic but worked well for our needs but any time I tried to adopt a different messenger, half the features didn't work.
I don't want to interact with anyone on Threads. It is new and it is Facebook.
Was about to say just that. I'll love to reject people that only follows big corpos.
It isn't the people. It's just if I already decided not to use Facebook or twitter. Why would I get back into bed with the devil on an experimental product?
Meta joining the fediverse is like Raytheon joining anti-war protests. They are not there for sincere participation.
Maybe, but smart tactics means abusing their current good will and shutting them down when. It runs out.
No worries once threads becomes big enough they will defederate from fediverse /s That sure will be hostile to fediverse users.
I doubt they will defederate from the rest of the fediverse. If they reach a dominant position in the fediverse, they can hide behind the fediverse being open to competition to avoid anti trust actions
When Thread finally enable federation, just unleash the Lemmy meme community there. We'll see how fast they roll back the federation feature on their own after their feeds are getting flooded with beans.
THIS IS THE WAY...
They have also already declared that if you federate with them, your instance has to abide by their code of conduct, so they already throwing their weight around.
I think that's essentially true for any instance, though. You don't federate with instances you don't want to.
Strongly disagree here, better to cast them down now while the chance is there. No mercy or quarter provided to Meta considering their track record.
If anyone is foolish enough to go there, let them, but do not drag us towards them.
Some instances will federate and some will block them. It doesn't have to be all one or the other.
Lots of naivety here. Big corps only act in their own interest. They view the world in terms of opportunities and threats. Eating Twitter's lunch is an opportunity. The Fediverse is too small to be worth much today, but someday it might grow up and challenge the status quo. That makes it a threat.
Threads is new - unless you meet someone who for some reason only has a threads account, just talk to them elsewhere.
Otherwise, why is it the Fediverse user who has to get the threads account? Tell your people to make an account elsewhere. If you are conscientiously avoiding threads, you're probably the only one in the relationship with a principle boundary to cross in this situation.
I'm all for federating with them. But give the user the ability to defederate their posts/comments based off their settings. I would rather my information not be supplied to any company owned by Facebook, that's just me.
The information they could get is already public. That’s how Activity Pub works.
That's completely fine, but just because a knob can be lockpick doesn't mean you leave it unlocked.
Granted I have very little experience with activity pub, but I would expect that it should be very possible to have something similar to how defederating Works where if you don't allow it to be sent to a specific Community it just won't communicate.
edit: Looking back at it though, it wouldn't stop them from just opening a secondary instance nobody knows about, having it set to private and then just running it as an info collector I don't think.
yep, your edit is correct - and is what the previous poster meant by public info
that's exactly what I was thinking
I agree with you.
Instances can defederate from meta at any point they choose, should it become necessary in the future. Until then, it is a huge boon to the more decentralized parts of the fediverse to get content from where all the "normies" are, as well as giving more visibility to non-meta instances and giving said normies a road to the less data-hungry parts of the network.
Reading material: https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
honestly, i think only half-accepting them would be beneficial. it gives meta users a taste of the fediverse but locks them out of a whole bunch of cool stuff that they could have, if they just make an account on one of the instances that they already know because it's in the half that does federate. we just need to ensure we never repeat xmpp's mistake: meta users should never be a majority.
i'll have to discuss this with our admin team, but my initial plan is to defederate meta if usage by them hits 25%. if a critical mass of the fediverse does that, in the worst case we'll split off from them before taking damage, and in the best case we'll actively siphon away their user base. (and if any other tech giant enters the fray, we'll just have to include them in the 25% quota as well.)
update: we discussed the topic and went for an immediate defederation
it is a huge boon to the more decentralized parts of the fediverse to get content from where all the “normies” are
This is something I can't understand. There's obviously no profit motive to push fediverse to everyone, and most content is dogshit.
Can you explain why you find either to be preferable?
Plus, the more entwined threads is with the rest of the fediverse, the harder it'll be for them to break off. Users will be following Mastodon accounts and posting in Lemmy communities and if Meta does something to break that, they're the ones that'll get the backlash, not the fediverse. We'll just continue along as normal.
Yes exactly
While I think I agree we shouldn 't just defederate them. This is for a user to block them. And if you tell users how they can block them, it will maybe take a bit of pressure away from admins to do it.
During the first wave of Twitter refugees , there was a lot of explaining about ignoring and blocking users. Which can never hurt IMHO. Certainly because it can decrease the load on the volunteers that run an instance
This opinion doesn’t seem unpopular to me.
I'm with you. What's the hate with Threads? It's going to basically just be like another Mastodon instance anyway, right? Just keep using whichever instance you want and Threads will end up adding more content to the fediverse. I don't really see the downside.
In case you're wondering why all the down votes, it's because of this concept:
https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
Edit: Heres a summary I had in another post.
Summary:
-
The Fediverse is a decentralized network of servers communicating through the ActivityPub protocol.
-
Large corporations like Google and Microsoft have a history of either trying to control or make decentralized networks irrelevant.
-
Google joined the XMPP federation initially but implemented their own closed version, causing compatibility issues and slowing down the development of XMPP.
-
Eventually, Google stopped federating with other XMPP servers, leading to a decline in XMPP's popularity and growth.
-
Microsoft used similar tactics to hinder competing projects, such as the Samba network file system and open source office suites like OpenOffice and LibreOffice.
-
The strategy involves extending protocols or developing new ones to deny entry to open source projects.
-
Proprietary formats and complicated specifications are used to maintain dominance in markets.
-
Meta's potential entry into the Fediverse raises concerns as it could lead to fragmentation and a loss of freedom.
-
The Fediverse should focus on its values of freedom, ethics, and non-commercialism to avoid being co-opted by large corporations.
How a new federated decentralized platform can avoid this fate:
-
Stay true to the principles: The platform should prioritize and uphold the values of freedom, openness, and decentralization.
-
Develop open and robust protocols: Use open standards and ensure the protocol's specifications are transparent, well-documented, and not controlled by a single entity.
-
Foster a strong community: Encourage collaboration, participation, and diversity within the community to avoid reliance on any single company or organization.
-
Emphasize user control: Give users control over their data and privacy, allowing them to choose which servers and communities to join and ensuring their content is not subject to corporate surveillance.
-
Focus on user experience: Create a user-friendly interface and provide features that attract and retain users, making it easy for them to engage and connect with others.
-
Avoid centralization of power: Design the platform in a way that distributes authority and influence across the network, preventing any single entity from gaining too much control.
-
Promote interoperability: Support compatibility with other decentralized platforms and protocols to encourage communication and collaboration across different networks.
-
Educate and raise awareness: Educate users about the benefits of decentralized platforms, the risks of centralized control, and the importance of supporting independent, community-driven initiatives.
By following these principles, a new federated decentralized platform can strive to maintain its integrity, preserve user freedom, and resist the influence of large corporations seeking to control or make it irrelevant.
Really appreciate the detailed response. Makes more sense why people would be wary of it after reading through that.
My reading of that isn't that Google killed XMPP, it's that they thought XMPP would be useful for the userbase they brought in, they realised it wasn't, and they ditched it. There's no indication that XMPP had the userbase and lost it to Google, or even that XMPP had features that were stolen by Google
The point is simple, the moment you have the biggest chunk of the userbase, you have more weight in establishing praxis for standards & protocols. In fact, the protocol needs to catch up with you, rather than viceversa. Google did the same with Chrome, for example. Try to start a browser today, and with all the stuff that Google forced into standards and that your browser need to comply with, you will fail. Even just forcing a pace in changes to ActivityPub can mean that a number of tools that are developed by volunteers won't be able to keep up.
Imagine Meta brings in 100m users. This is a fraction of their userbase, but it is 8x the whole fediverse. Imagine now that they make some change that doesn't comply with ActivityPub, what do you do, break the tool that is used by the 90% of the users, or adapt? And what if they push changes to ActivityPub, so that everyone needs to catch up quickly: lemmy, mastodon, pixelfed, etc. How soon before some tools with less active development will die because non-compliant? (Similarly to how some browser break with some sites)
For what it's worth, I agree with your reading, and nobody has described what I consider to be a plausible scenario for how exactly "embrace, extend, extinguish" would actually work here.
I don't think Meta should be given the benefit of the doubt or anything and people may have differing opinions about the likely user base for Threads, but I don't think this is any real concern to the fediverse in general.
If Meta is running a fediverse instance, they're doing it for money. Sure, I might be able to block Meta-sourced content from reaching me, but that doesn't prevent me-sourced content from reaching Meta - where they can monetize it.
Show me how to do that, and I'm on it like white on rice.
@Nougat It doesn’t prevent them now, as they can just easily crawl all of your posts on here because you are posting on a *public instance*. Defederating from them does nothing to make your public content private.
@ninboy No, it doesn't make my public content private, but it would display my content alongside everything else that a threads user would see, which would make Meta's product more attractive to threads users. Increased threads userbase means increased ad revenue. Speaking of which, I'm now thinking about how content I created, not on a Meta-operated site, would be (as federation by default intends) displayed next to Meta advertising on their instance. My ability to prevent me-sourced content from reaching Meta's instance prevents me-sourced content from displaying next to advertisement I don't want it to be displayed next to.
@Nougat that makes sense, thanks for elaborating on your points. I guess as soon as we put any content out there we can’t prevent screenshots going viral on any context.
@ninboy Sure, you're not going to close that "analog hole," but in a case like that, the audience is aware that the content isn't from the site they're on. Me- (and you- and everyone-)sourced content appearing on a Meta site as though it was Meta content would carry some things to have real concerns about.
Of course, this is all really new(ish), so it's possible that a future internet audience will have a better awareness of how federation works, and bring that understanding with them while they browse. On the other hand, have you seen people?
Tangent: You tagged me in your original reply, which made me wonder why, and if I should do the same thing. Checking your username, I see you're on from mastodon.social, and here I am via kbin.social. I think this is my first real interplatform conversation like that, and I think it's really cool.
Easy peasy!
Neat, but it still means nothing. You're still posting in a public forum. You can copyright or watermark your work, but fair use is a two way street.
Neat, but it still means nothing.
I see you're not well versed in bird law.
I printed it out and put it on the front door of my house. The castle doctrine means that this is enforced against all internet companies I use in my house.
You make a good point.
Under the Castle Doctrine laws in my state, if Zuckerberg walked into my house without being invited then I could start blastin.
I'll post the legalese mumbo jumbo on my door to keep him out, like he's a vampire.
Where would this be posted or stored to have legal effects?
A different reality.
How is this legally binding? I still remember when people posted similar stuff all over Facebook. It means nothing.
That's the funny part, it works because [...]
This is exactly my concern, I don't want my online activity to become another revenue stream for meta. If they can put ads next to our posts then we're back to working for free for the billionaires.
The issue is the stuff I post being monetized by Zuck et al. I'm not interested in providing free content for billionaires.
If I understand correctly, the concern is not for the users on Meta's "Threads". It's the fact that the content you create on Mastodon or whatever fediverse part with which Meta federated would eventually reach users on Threads, and thus "you" (on the fediverse corner outside of Meta) are indirectly monetized.
Meta should stay away from fediverse!
Yeah, not a fan of the ominous shadow threads™️ casts. I don't trust them not to flood the fediverse with assorted toxic garbage to push people back towards their walled garden platforms.
The fediverse offers something radical - a new shot at genuine self determination and a socialised, self-governing internet. That shit spells B-A-D N-E-W-S for incumbent platforms (imo) and they're bad actors in general; they wouldn't think twice about smothering anything that threatens their short/long term profits. Who'se going to stop them?
Might be a little bit overly risk concious but goddamn. If I were them, I'd be trying to kill alternative ecosystems before they grew - especially if mine (metas) is both trash to use, and be used by.
Even worse, the Threads app is a privacy nightmare
I bet meta really wants to keep track of people in fediverse
What does "Other Data" even cover? Could be literally anything Meta wants
I bet your DNA profile is part of the "other data". /s
Technically genetic information is covered by 'sensitive info.' I'm not joking.
ActivityPub is no more radical than NNTP. Lemmy is almost an exact reimplementation of newsgroups
It will be a reimplementation of usenet when I can turn text into 0 day warez.
based
Big corpos don't want to take it over, they want it gone.
https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
Meta jumping on the Fediverse bandwagon would kill it one day. It's an EEE strategy. We need to keep them out. Defederate from them.
I don't think so. How would they kill the fediverse? Like there will still many communities that will not federate with Meta and still continue to operate as usual.
I think this is a pretty good read.
I think that article is mostly fearmongering.
Most people using Mastodon right now are not following mainstream people on their feeds - they are mostly following like-minded people who have made the switch from Twitter. If their server decides to federate with Meta, it will actually improve their experience because they can start following mainstream people from the comfort of their Mastodon feed. And if Meta decides to break ActivityPub (which I doubt), it will be back to the original status quo for most users.
And most mainstream people will not be signing up for Mastodon anyways, they will be signing up for Threads/Blue Sky.
@app_priori @jacktherippah I would never put anything past Facebook's intentions and the reactions of some Mastodon users. I think a good chunk of Mastodon users would still go back to a centralized network and might see Threads as a way to have both worlds ... until the other shoe drops.
Well that's because Mastodon has many shortcomings. Like the search sucks. It's hard to find people to follow without asking people for recommendations. Mastodon is scarcely a Twitter replacement; it feels like it was built to create extremely insular communities. Like Gab and Truth Social run on Mastodon's software.
@app_priori I sular communities that can federate. That's the draw for me, but may not be for others. I think I'm done with a Twitter-like experience but I know a lot of other Twitter "refugees" just will not roll with the new experiences. And recreating somewhere where news and information can be diseminated. I mean it seems like it would be an easy technical problem to solve and I'm surprised that it hasn't happened already.
Anyways lol I'm rambling
Same with Kbin. I would honestly go back to reddit sooner than I would accept being smooshed together with Meta.
Otherwise, Meta's groups could become just another Lemmy instance
I tried to sign up for this junk and it immediately suspended my account at the end of the sign up process for some reason. Now it's demanding my mobile number to appeal it.
Get fucked Zuckerberg you tosser.
I really hope the fediverse can block out the meta crap…
i'll join the voices saying this is bad for the fediverse, and bad for users in general. there are LOTS of normie users who are joining threads who will be shut off from learning about all the cool other servers if everyone blocks them. this will mean users who want to interact with them need to sign up on Threads, which is what we don't want.
what we want is that users on Threads see other servers, learn that they're better, and migrate over.
don't block Threads, show them how much better we are.
This is Microsoft's playbook, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish, it was use by Google to kill off XMPP - https://www.disruptivetelephony.com/2013/05/did-google-really-kill-off-all-xmppjabber-support-in-google-hangouts-it-still-seems-to-partially-work.html, now it will be used by Facebook to try to kill the Fediverse.
Why is this not more widely talked about? Please share this.
Has lemmy.world blocked meta?
Spontaneous idea of how to use copyright law for keeping Meta out of the Fediverse (more for fun):
Introduction: Parts of the Fediverse, including Mastodon, are software licensed under the APGL license. This license is a great choice because it forces the ones running the software to grant users access to the source code. GPL for example would allow to run proprietary services based on GPL code. The AGPL does not. Companies like Meta and Google will likely not use AGPL code because it might force them to also publish their proprietary systems behind the scenes. However, this does not help much for keeping the Fediverse save. They simply implement their own software which will not be open source.
Therefore we may need another approach. Defederating is the simplest and in my opinion currently the best. It's easy and keeps people in control.
However, there could be some 'automatic' approach using copyright law. It's a hack which allows to use existing law to regulate the way instances can federate.:
- instances would Federate only if the other side can provide a certain piece of information called X
- X is protected by copyright law, therefore by default, instances are not allowed to provide X
- However, X is released under a license which for permits to copy and distribute X under certain conditions
- The conditions allow to tune who can legally federate
- Conditions could be
- The server software must be AGPL licensed
- The instance must not be owned by a company with a certain amount of annual revenue
Open question is, who owns the copyright of X?
My first reaction is this sounds like a great way to onboard more folks into the fediverse - but is this a perhaps a paradox of intolerance? Does Meta as a corporate entity have a natural intolerance to the freeness and openness of the fediverse, and if so, does it need to be violently rejected?
I don't understand why this is even a question. Is the tragedy of the commons not taught in american education? Is Land Clearance(one example of many linked) and Enclosure not taught? (Serious question open to anyone, I do not know what history is taught outside major european countries)
This is essential basic history to understand how land developed from being a collectively worked upon thing, decentralised, owned by everybody that worked on it, into something that was owned by a tiny tiny number of people so that they could exploit it to the maximum degree.
Decentralisation is the creation of a commons. The goal of corporations is centralisation of power and monopoly. They are at complete polar opposites in goals. The entire point of the fediverse in the first place is to destroy the centralised power of web corporations who took what was originally a digital commons populated by thousands of sites and communities and through a form of digital enclosure turned it into a space controlled by a handful of companies.
Learn history other than the popular military shit folks. It is essential in analysing what affects you.
As a product of American eduation, I can say resolutely that no, that was absolutely not taught.
Of course, this is partially because American education sucks and partially because we never HAD common land here: everything was privately owned, after it was stolen from the people who already lived here, and then most of it had people who had no say in the matter enslaved to work on it for the people who stole the land.
Of course, this is ALSO not really taught, because it'd make people feel sad and make the US look kinda bad, so it's always talked about but you get like, a week of coverage on both subjects, at most.
It saddens me to hear that kids in the US don't learn about the fuckups of their ancestors, as this might "upset" them. My kids here in Germany learn about the Holocaust and they take trips to concentration camps so they learn about the past. Not to guilt them or shame them, but to teach them, so history doesn't repeat itself. (And we're not even native Germans, we're east European immigrants.)
The problem here is conservatives call learning about our past mistakes "woke" and do everything in their power to remove this curriculum from our schools. For some reason, they look at it as "trying to destroy our great nation and traditional values" instead of "learning from our past to be a better country going forward."
Except military, which they teach A LOT, we spent maybe 5 days on the crimes we committed against Native Americans, but an entire month or more on the Revolutionary War. Hell, we spent longer on learning about "world religions" than we did all our mistakes. Plus, any WW1/WW2 war crimes committed by our side is not taught whatsoever.
It saddens me to hear that kids in the US don’t learn about the fuckups of their ancestors, as this might “upset” them.
Nationalism is a disease.
I'm probably going to get mega canceled here but I think a good portion of it is that the Holocaust is history.
A lot of what we don't talk about is how we treated the Native Americans because we're STILL shitting on them from on high. For example, the Dakota Access Pipeline is the same old shit, different century.
Also talking about how we've treated people of color, and any discussion around chattel slavery, ends up being "uncomfortable" because an awful lot of people in this country don't seem to see any problem with it and would be perfectly happy if we could toss out the civil rights acts and go back to having separate water fountains.
TLDR: it's 'history' in Germany because ya'll arrest people giving nazi salutes, but in the US wearing a KKK robe is "free speech".
Agreed. American history is terribly white-washed.
Basically some dudes came over from England, Indians cooked them corn and turkey and everyone was happy. A few years later their descendants got mad at England, dressed up as the Indians and threw tea off a boat. Some shots were fired but we settled down over a piece of paper that guarantees freedom and guns for all.
Later you might learn that “all” means white land-owning males but eventually that got expanded and now we are al happy in the greatest country in the world (yes, that part is also taught), and every morning for 180 days of the year for 13 straight years we stand up and recite a poem about how much we love our country.
Maybe it’s changing, idk. I graduated the public school system 20 years ago. My kindergartener came home a few months ago saying he watched a video on MLK Jr in his class where they talked about his assassination. I thought that was a bit dark to go to in kindergarten but at least it’s talked about, even somewhat.
It’s all but against the law in Florida (maybe other states as well?) to teach that aspect of history. Wouldn’t want the white kids to feel guilty for being white… because they know about things that happened in the past.
What is "Tragedy of the Commons?" Is that a new concept?
The Tragedy of the Commons was a bullshit piece of justification for the enclosures written by racist colonial-minded eugenicists that resulted in the theft of land from the people and ultimate consolidation of that land as private property in the hands of the landowners. It argued that this was necessary because otherwise the hordes of drooling peasants would destroy it.
The whole point of the tradgedy of the commons is that publically owned finite resources don't work. You've completely misunderstood the point. If you're following that logic then centralization, ownership, and control is the only answer.
Of course none of that applies, because what is the finite resource here? Both Meta and the fediverse can co-exist without destroying each other for want of servers or network bandwidth. The only real finite resource here is human attention - in which case federating with meta should be a good thing. This is because it increases the amount of content available on both platforms with the less popular platform benefiting the most.
Christ.
They do not aim to coexist. They aim to enclose.
This is incredible levels of naivity. Like, literally completely and totally oblivious to how profit seeking works and what behaviours it creates.
And the tragedy of the commons was a crock of shit made by racist eugenicist colonial-minded fuckbags, that's the entire point of teaching it, as a way of understanding the kind of utter bullshit that gets spread when landgrabbers(in the modern day the corporations) want to go grabbing. This is why education is important, without it people go reading a wiki article and come to these kinds of nonsensical conclusions.
I didn't read an article about it, I watched a YouTube video about it from a science and maths youtuber originally. You also didn't elude to this in your first comment at all. I was actually going to reply to you telling you why it's a bad concept once I learned it's history.
I also don't get why your complaining to me about education. I don't control what gets taught in the UK (my home country), I just work with what I have.
I still don't see how it applies to this situation in any way.
Edit: also your username has Lenin in it. Are you a fucking tankie?
Define tankie for me? It's somewhat lost all meaning given that the Ukrainian government is calling the US government tankies now. This is a serious question for the record, I can't really say whether I am your definition of tankie or not without knowing it given that the definition seems to change for everyone.
Also since this is going to be political and we both live in the same country (I moderate /r/greenandpleasant), did you vote Corbyn or are you a tory?
I also don’t get why your complaining to me about education. I don’t control what gets taught in the UK (my home country), I just work with what I have.
Enclosure of the commons is 100% taught in the UK at GCSE level as part of the curriculum: https://www.tutor2u.net/history/reference/enclosure-elizabethan-england
Tankie is anyone that supports Lenin or anything more authoritarian marxist than that.
I didn't vote for Corbyn, because I wasn't old enough to vote at the time. (Was there even a general election at that time? I don't remember). It's a stupid question to ask given he hasn't been the leader of the labour party for years at this point.
I have never voted conservative. I think I voted green in the last election I voted in but don't remember. Didn't get to vote in the last local one as I was busy and forgot.
I never did history GCSE and I don't think most people did. You have to choose between that and other options like Geography so not everyone will be taught it.
So are you against the RMT railroad strikes because Mick Lynch publicly calls James Connolly his political hero and is an obvious marxist-leninist ?
Are you against Jeremy Corbyn, because he defends the Soviet Union and always has, and because he also promotes the Black Panthers who defended north korea (if you look in the corner of the video around 2:00 there's even a cute little soviet cccp statue).
Are you against Diane Abbott, because she's publicly defended Mao on national television.
Are you against John Mcdonnell who has said his job is to overthrow capitalism on the BBC, probably because he's quoted Mao and read his little red book in parliament?
Are you against the Durham miners gala? Where they march with communist banners and have done so for 137 years?
You have spent too much time in american anti-communist spaces where their brains are riddled with the historical legacy of two red scares, and you've spent absolutely zero time in British leftist spaces. You have riddled your mind with american brainworms against socialism and I implore you to join a union and actually go out and organise.
u have spent too much time in american anti-communist spaces where their brains are riddled with the historical legacy of two red scares, and you've spent absolutely zero time in British leftist spaces. You have riddled your mind with american brainworms against socialism and I implore you to join a union and actually go out and organise.
Hahahahahahahaha
Why on earth would you just assume something like that? That's completely ridiculous.
I actually became disillusioned from MLs partly by joining a Trotskyist organisation founded in England. Specifically Socialist Appeal which are part of the IMT.
Note I originally said I dislike Lenin and people who came after that (mao, stalin, trotsky, etc.). This is because I have seen what they do to other Communists they disagree with, and what China still does to real Marxists and Anarchists. Lookup Kronstadt if you want an example.
MLs only care about their specific subset of Marixst ideology and if you disagree you are imprisoned or killed. That's not communism, that's a cult!
I would hope that people like Jeremy Corbin are just mislead on the behavior of some of these people, and aren't up for a authoritarian "socialist" regime. Not that he is really relevant anymore anyway as I stated previously.
As for Marx I actually think he said some intelligent things for his time. That being said like his descendants he is too sectarian. I also think anarchists have some interesting ideas. That being said they all died long ago. I don't think it's healthy or progressive to hang on their every word as absolute truth - that's called religion. Religion should have no place in politics.
I actually became disillusioned from MLs partly by joining a Trotskyist organisation founded in England. Specifically Socialist Appeal which are part of the IMT.
The jokers that don't actually do any organising at all and do nothing but show up to everyone else's events, put up their branding to make it look like they're involved and sell papers? Those ones? The ones literally everyone in the UK left hates because they contribute absolutely fucking nothing while larping and piggybacking on actual organising others do?
Not surprised then.
Kinda bizarre for you to be a trot and hate Lenin though. Trots love Lenin. Trotskyism isn't anti-authority either, in fact Trotsky's book literally says he would have done everything the Soviet Union did do. Have you actually read any Trotsky?
they all died long ago
What? Anarchism is very alive in the UK they just don't participate electorally.
MLs only care about their specific subset of Marixst ideology and if you disagree you are imprisoned or killed. That’s not communism, that’s a cult!
Uhh.. You realise it was Trotsky that wiped out the anarchists in the Kronstady Rebellion right?
A lot of this sounds a lot like you're making stuff up, only half know certain details, and are generally winging it through this conversation. It's ok to say you don't know something.
You didn't actually answer my question about the demsocs above. Are they all tankies to you?
You've completely misinterpreted half of what I said. I am not a Trotskyist! I left that group because it was all bullshit.
That's why I am against Leninists.
I never said Anarchists died long ago. I am trying to say people like Marx, Krapotkin, and Bakunin died long ago.
You didn't actually answer my question about the demsocs above. Are they all tankies to you?
Some of them aren't relevant and the other half I have never heard of. So I am not gonna render and option there.
Right so you're right wing, a liberal and an anti-socialist then. Got it. I wish we'd gotten to this point 10 messages ago it would have wasted a lot less time.
What? I hate the right wing! The fuck is wrong with you?
I want socialism, I just don't support Leninists. I also think we need new ideas in the left wing rather than relying on people that died a 100 years ago. Reading Marx or Krapotkin is great but we can't just rely on them, we need to accept that they are limited by the time they lived in. Plus who actually likes reading old English?
I actually like the idea of market socialism and workplace democracy. It's the closest thing to a real economic model for socialism I have seen. I believe anarcho-syndicalism is similar to this but I am not really sure, my understanding of anarchism is fairly limited.
You really need to stop assuming that anyone who isn't an ML is a right wing person. I also don't get why you jump to random conclusions and misinterpret everything I say. It's like you want me to fit in one of several boxes in your head because it's easier to deal with that than actually talk to a real person.
You really need to stop assuming that anyone who isn’t an ML is a right wing person. I also don’t get why you jump to random conclusions and misinterpret everything I say. It’s like you want me to fit in one of several boxes in your head because it’s easier to deal with that than actually talk to a real person.
I didn't. I very clearly laid out a bunch of lukewarm socdems who hold positions you would call them tankies for and go about your usual wrecker shit.
Your views on what socialism actually is are a mess, you have winged it through half the conversation because you barely understand the basic theory, and you very obviously don't understand what the difference is between several of these groups.
I also think we need new ideas in the left wing rather than relying on people that died a 100 years ago. Reading Marx or Krapotkin is great but we can’t just rely on them, we need to accept that they are limited by the time they lived in. Plus who actually likes reading old English?
"Gravity is an old theory and we should accept that it is just something Newton came up with nearly 400 years ago and move on from it." Clown shit.
I think anyone who supports Stalin and Stalinism is an idiot at best. If you don't agree with me I really don't know what to tell you. I can understand Jeremy Corbin saying that comparing him to hitler is unnecessary as they aren't on the same level. Saying someone isn't as bad as Hitler isn't the same as saying you support them.
Okay what do you think socialism is?
As far as I am concerned it's where the workers control the means of production. If the government controls the means of production that government needs to be controlled by the people or else it isn't socialism!
That's why the USSR under Stalin can barley be called socialist, because Stalin had an outsized influence on the government. He could get you killed for disagreement with him.
"Gravity is an old theory and we should accept that it is just something Newton came up with nearly 400 years ago and move on from it." Clown shit.
You're really gonna argue physics with me?
Newton had great ideas, just like Marx had great ideas. Newton's equations though have largely been replaced by Einstein and his theory of relativity. It gives more precise understanding of the way forces and gravity work than Newton could dream of. Likewise Einstein was wrong about quantum physics and things like the behavior of light.
In a science we don't just sit on our laurels and blindly repeat past scientists. We constantly test, refine, improve, or reject old ideas.
We should be treating Marx like we treat Newton or Einstein. Had some great ideas, some are still true, some are close but need further refinement, some are just straight up wrong. That's the difference between an academic and a religious person.
I think anyone who supports Stalin and Stalinism is an idiot at best.
Which of his books have you read? I suspect none. Why exactly do you feel authoritative on the subject without any actual knowledge?
As far as I am concerned it’s where the workers control the means of production. If the government controls the means of production that government needs to be controlled by the people or else it isn’t socialism!
Ok, but you called SWCC borderline fascism while stating you like titoism, despite both having more or less identical political and economic structures. The main difference being inclusion of MZT in the Chinese strain while that isn't present in Tito's strain. You kinda just sidestepped this when I brought it up and have avoided it ever since. What do you actually know about the fundamental structure of their electoral system? Why do you call it borderline fascism?
You’re really gonna argue physics with me?
In a science we don’t just sit on our laurels and blindly repeat past scientists. We constantly test, refine, improve, or reject old ideas.
Yes and that's what marxism also does, which is why marxist-leninist theory today is not the same as it was when marx wrote his ideas, or when lenin contributed, or stalin, or mao, or tito, etc etc. You are once again demonstrating an extremely poor knowledge of the subject matter, marxism is a science, and marxist-leninists are not dogmatic.
We should be treating Marx like we treat Newton or Einstein. Had some great ideas, some are still true, some are close but need further refinement, some are just straight up wrong. That’s the difference between an academic and a religious person.
You are literally describing the marxist-leninist approach. If what you said about being a member of Socialist Appeal is true then I suspect your experience was cult-like and dogmatic, and this probably coloured all of your views. It probably also doesn't help that they don't actually do anything of value except grift off of everyone else's work. (not true of some of the other international branches of socialist appeal, but certainly true of the UK one).
I wish you were a little more honest about what you do and don't know, and less of your responses felt like winging it on certain topics while hoping someone who has actually read the material won't notice. It would make it much easier to root out what the problem here is, and why you seem to hate literally every socialist that exists except the liberals that wear the aesthetics while spending all of their time engaged in nothing but anti-socialism.
I have never heard if Tito or Tionism. How could I have argued about someone I have never heard of. Maybe I described his ideas without calling him by name?
What SWCC? Any searches I ran came up with organisations not related to socialist politics.
I think you might be right about socialist appeal. People have actually called them a cult before. It wouldn't surprise me if they have turned people off marxism before. The issue is they are probably the best at recruiting young people, they were the only polticial organization to show up at my university for instance. They also have posters everywhere.
Liberals? What do you mean by liberals? If you mean the American party then I don't like them either, though they do beat the republicans. If you mean libertarian then all anarchists and even some marxists are libertarian. So are right wing capitalists and some people in between. It's a very broad term that basically equates to freedom of speech and some other freedoms.
I hope you don't actually support Stalin though. From what I have been told what he wrote in his theory is somewhat reasonable, but dosen't at all match what he actually did. The writing was mere propaganda. I have also spoken to people from ex-soviet countries, they basically all hate the USSR. It's what caused a friend if mine to stop being a Marixst-Leninist.
You are right that I haven't read much theory. Theory is incredibly boring especially given it's mostly in older English and hard to understand. Poltitics isn't something I plan to do for a living - at least not any time soon.
I have yet to see any evidence that marxism is a science. I also don't believe modern capitalist economics is a science either. I have a very high bar for these things. When has marxism done controlled studies of different economic or polticial systems? If you have never done a controlled study then your not a science. Maybe there are some studies on this that I don't know about. I would love if you could show me some.
Turns out I have you mixed up with someone else. Sorry.
This actually makes a complete mess of the conversation for me because I'm not sure entirely what I said that was responding to you correctly and what I mixed up with the user who brought up liking Tito.
Let's throw away the part where I called you a liberal, and some of the other accusations of not knowing what you're talking about. This was mostly caused by the other conversation I was having.
I hope you don’t actually support Stalin though. From what I have been told what he wrote in his theory is somewhat reasonable, but dosen’t at all match what he actually did. The writing was mere propaganda. I have also spoken to people from ex-soviet countries, they basically all hate the USSR. It’s what caused a friend if mine to stop being a Marixst-Leninist.
Hmm 70% good, 30% bad. There's a lot of historical context that needs to be considered, 2 world wars, 2 revolutions and a civil war supported by all the capitalist powers of the world. Also the fact that they were doing something nobody had ever done before, with no idea of the "what not to do" things. Mistakes were absolutely made. But at the same time you have to discard the rampant propaganda that portrays this man as a cartoon villain, the trots are absurd for this and the capitalists are obviously unreliable because they want him to be a villain for the fact it also makes socialism a villain. The reality is much more balanced. Winston Churchill is a bigger monster than he ever was and I don't think you view him through the weird "evil monster" lens created by the narrative and environment we have surrounding this man.
I have also spoken to people from ex-soviet countries, they basically all hate the USSR.
The ones that were under 10 at the end of the USSR should be discarded as irrelevant. They claim to have lived it but were too young to remember and grew up during a capitalist storm of anti-socialism. The capitalists who were disempowered (and their descendants) should also be carefully disregarded, such as the Cuban gusanos of Florida who are all basically descendants of the bourgeoisie who lost their businesses and land when the communists took power. Those that should be listened to? Anyone that was 20+ at the time the USSR disbanded, and the genuine working class rather than migrant bourgeoise elements
I strongly recommend interview videos like these ones, which include the bad and the good, to see and build an idea from the people who actually lived it. https://youtu.be/ui11x8vLQFIhttps://youtu.be/mGUAIwlVR9A https://youtu.be/rfrtr9hAFYs
I have yet to see any evidence that marxism is a science.
You've not read Engels then? Socialism: Utopian and Scientific forms the basis of explaining this, and compares it to utopian socialism which is not at all scientific, mainly idealism.
A science is just a body of theories grounded in a materialist analysis that produces predictable and reproducible results. When it is not predictable or reproducible other theories are then evaluated, and so on and so forth.
There are three main parts to Marxian methodology which are interdependent on each other. These are the Labour Theory of Value, Materialist Conception of History and the theory of class struggle. The Labour Theory of value sets out the economic laws which regulate commodity production under capitalism. The Materialist Conception of History places the productive relationships of commodity production, wage labour and capital in the setting of history. And class struggle provides the setting for explaining social evolution in terms of a revolutionary process. All of this are analysed in a materialist rather than idealist way, and if/when results are not predictable we either evaluate whether the material conditions have been incorrectly analysed or whether the theory itself needs adjusting. We reject dogmatism and constantly reassess and adjust as things have changed historically, Marx existed pre-industrial revolution afterall.
Your experience with Socialist Appeal and the manner in which they treat Trotsky as a god and Stalin as a demon is itself incredibly dogmatic bordering on cultlike religious attitudes. We don't. We take the bad, we take the good, and we aim to analyse things clinically without moralising.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/ui11x8vLQFI
https://piped.video/mGUAIwlVR9A
https://piped.video/rfrtr9hAFYs
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Huh this is neat. Nitter for youtube? I can see good reason for this with them banning people who use adblockers (although I added a script that gets around it on like day 1 lol).
The Tragedy of the Commons is a cherry-picked economic fantasy. It is counter to what really happened, and, thus, false evidence for any point.
Hardin, the author of the Tragedy of the Commons was also a White Supremacist who was horrible enough to earn his own entry at the SPLC.
Normally, it's genetic fallacy to criticize the source of an argument. But here, the "Tragedy" has been used to justify not honoring treaties, theft of land and resources, polluting indigenous lands, and even genocide.
There is an unspoken bigotry in the argument that deserves recognizing it as racist.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/garrett-hardin
From what I've seen, irregardless threads/there version on the fediverse is going to scrape any and all instances also on the fediverse. Blocking them wont necessarily help with any of this, but maybe if even communities do they wont have enough content to make it profitable? Maybe I'm naive. Well, I know I am, but any way to stick it to the man is a good idea in my book.
Although the scraping would happen either way, and if they really felt like it, they could just spool up their own private instance to do some scraping that way instead, even without tying it into Threads.
The goal short term isn't to be profitable though. The goal is to pull enough users so they can effectively stunt the growth of 'competition'.
Do you really need to import a CSV just to block a single domaine? Sounds over complicated
Is there a way for a Lemmy user to block content from Meta's instance? If so, I'd love to.
I'm not worried at all about Zuck taking over Mastodon at all, they'll try but they are just so incompetent, because literally every single product idea they have they either stole or bought from somebody else. Great tech, terrible products, zero originality is the Facebook mantra and that is because they have a delusional CEO that they can't fire, because Zuck has delude himself into thinking he's an "ideas" guy like Jobs instead of an "executions" guy like Bezos that he really is, and until he realizes that, he will always fail.
(also, delusional for actually thinking Ready Player One is a good book)
If making a TikTok clone didn't get people to switch from TikTok, why would they think making a Twitter clone is going to get people to switch from Twitter?
The only way I see Facebook being a threat is when they give up on making their Twitter clone and start providing easy subscription service hosting for Mastodon/Lemmy to EEE. THAT would be the time to worry.
I just won't be apart of any instance that chooses to be federated with Meta. There are many people like me, and I hope kbin and most lemmy instance owners are aware of this.
Bear in mind that this blocks you from seeing Threads posts on your profile. Unless you private your profile, this changes nothing as far as what they're able to see/pull from your account. Their official documentation states that the block only prevents users from seeing or retrieving content from those servers. You'd probably have to be performing some DNS-level filtering on incoming requests or web firewalling from the host level to prevent their incoming requests.
Sure hope they get defederated at least.
Threads being in the Fediverse is a plus for me, not a negative. It means I could follow regular people and friends who would never in a million years join places like Mastodon or Lemmy while I still get the benefits of being on those platforms, all while being shielded from Meta’s ads and data harvesting. The only issue is I don’t actually believe Zuck will go through with it. They’ll either never federate or severely limit it if they do.
Mastodon themselves have put out a post outlining how this will affect them (it won’t) and how EEE is not a threat. If Meta does eventually opt out of ActivityPub then cool. It’s not like that’s why Mastodon users were there in the first place.
Fuck Meta
All my homies hate meta
Fuck the Zuck!
So I'm on Threads (occupational hazard, I have Instagram for work) and it's a surreal experience. It's like if everyone you know on Facebook and Twitter joined you on a muted Tumblr overlay. Someone's already 'd Zuck to ask for a "home feed that's just your follows." So... like Mastodon.
exaggerated_eye_roll.wav
For kbin users to unilaterally block content from threads:
- Go to /d/threads.net
- Click the block button next to the subscribe one
The only drawback is that it will only start working after the first piece of content from threads.net has been shared on your instance - for now it returns a 404 not found.
Edit: Mileage may vary, depending on how Threads solves its fediverse integration.
Thanks! Keeping this open so i can do it later.
Does anyone know if kbin.social will even federate to begin with?
Since Threads won't apparently be federating at all, with anyone at launch - no.
Does /d/ block an instance?
I think there is a misunderstanding in the kbin community.
/d/ blocks a domain, A domain is not an instance.
But i'm not shure what /d/ blocks or not. As far as I know it's what's between the bracket's after a post ()
You're right that it's a bit trickier than I thought. It blocks the shared content: images and other content hosted at lemmy.world can be blocked from https://kbin.social/d/lemmy.world/ , but it will not include links to external sites, nor will it work for text posts. Blocking lemmynsfw.com worked fine for me, but that's of course because it's an image-heavy service.
Whether or not it will work for threads.net off the bat I guess then depends on how Threads interacts with the fediverse; whether it merely shares a link content stored locally, or whether it distributes the content in its entirety.
I updated my post to clarify!
Getting a 404 error, but might just be due to kbin upgrades, etc.
Great! Commenting for finding later.
Did meta anounce that threads will be compatible with mastadon or did miss something.
They previously announced that they would federate with ActivityPub, but yesterday we learned that it won't happen for "three months." With all the European regulatory issues and other factors, I'll bet it will be a lot longer than that. In fact, I'd be surprised if we ever see full federation capability.
Oh, was EU able to block them from joining the fediverse or are they just stalling for some other reason?
They haven't said why. I'm assuming that federation with outside entities would present some logistical problems for them w/r/t their privacy obligations in Europe. If that's right, I suspect the whole ActivityPub thing could be "delayed" indefinitely.
Thanks y'all for explaining. Imo it is a good thing that it is "delayed".
Yep. They said it won't have the activitypub protocol implemented at launch, but it will come soon after, so it can be federated with Mastodon.
You are a hero among men
What I heard some people said about the fediverse was that before email was controlled by big corporations you can host your own email and no issues. Nowadays its much harder for a regular person to do this because big corporations took control of the federated email. So to my understanding even this social networks are in danger of the same thing happening. Please anyone correct me if I am wrong.
You are. It's just as easy now to host your own mail server as it was thirty years ago
Hosting mail is easy, not getting hit by spam filters is the difficult part
Agreed, but your emails actually reaching people wasn't in the initial requirements presented 😉
Does Meta entering the Fediverse mean that they'll federate with Lemmy instances or just Mastodon instances?
I'm just gonna bully the shit out of them, like the blue checkers on twitter.
Sign up for a real instance, fucking nerds.
Didn't know that Threads is compatible with Mastodon. So they use the same protocol?
Why wouldn't I just do this?
threads will never federate.
How likely is a federated threads going to be used to harvest data for whatever advertising or AI purpose meta has?
Aside from ensuring their launch product has immediate content, the only reason meta would do this is for that $$.
That said, it could be a symbiotic relationship with instances who's users aren't super worried about that & find value from the addtl content it will surely bring.
There's nothing stopping them from harvesting data with or without Threads. They can just create their own hidden Lemmy, Mastadon servers and pull all the data that way. Sure, someone could catch on and block that server, but they could just spin more up wherever.
This is the main concern.
I create Threads. It gets 30 million users very quickly. Lemmy users only make up say, 1 million users.
I make changes to Threads that don't follow the ActivityPub protocol to the T, this makes the Lemmy servers glitchy when interacting with Threads content until Lemmy can be patched, but I'll just keep making these changes to Threads over and over.
User A likes Lemmy, but it's really starting to glitch out all the time. They have a lot of friends they interact with on Threads and because Lemmy has so many issues they say fuck it, hop over to Threads so they can consistently keep up with their friends/community.
Sure, its a symbiotic relationship for the people who “aren’t super worried” about it, until metas platform becomes big enough to defederate with the rest of the fediverse, taking all of its users and content with it, and leaving you on an empty network because everyone you know “just uses the meta instance”…
I'm just hoping it's a massive failure just like the metaverse. I wish no success for the Zuck fuck in any of his endeavors.
I mean wouldn't that be not a bad thing? The people who don't want to federate will be left in their own community with their posts/content intact.
Its not about when people don’t want to federate with meta, its when meta no longer wants to federate with you.
Let me put it this way. If I surveyed every person in my social circles right now, the only person who is using the “Fediverse” as we call it is myself. The others who know about it only know of it because I won’t shut up about it.
But lets say Threads.net takes off, and becomes a new mainstream social media. Maybe its easier to sign up and start using, maybe the UI is a little better, or maybe its just advertised well to current Instagram and Facebook users. Suddenly, 20-30% of the people in my circles might be using the “Fediverse” through Threads.
“This sounds awesome!” I hear you saying. Well there’s a catch. New users to the fediverse tend to just join the biggest instance. We’ve seen this already with Lemmy.world, I personally chose it because it was a lesser populated instance, but it quickly became #1 and is now the fastest growing. Well this means new users would all sign up on Threads, right? Suddenly, the fediverse is 100x larger than it once was, but 80-90% of all the content comes from Threads users.
And then, one day, now with a stranglehold of almost all content coming into the fediverse, Meta is free to defederate from the rest of the platform. Maybe they throw up ads, start selling user data, whatever. Now you and I are left here, with almost all of the traffic gone. Many users switch to threads, because thats where the content is.
Sure, the fediverse is kind of in that final position right now, but the context is much different; everyone here is excited to make this a community. In this scenario, we’d be trying to rebuild the platform. Imagine trying to get everyone to migrate back to MySpace right now, you’d be laughed at whether it was actually a better platform or not.
If it feels like I’m reaching here, look up what happened with XMPP and Google. We have been on this ride before.
I fail to see how that would generally impact people who interact from the fediverse side of it rather than Meta's own instance. Like if Meta decides to no longer federate with the rest of the fediverse, that would be like all the normies signing up for Threads.net and not interacting with Mastodon at all right?
I think you are reaching.
Right, I get what you’re saying and if they aren’t federated to begin with then I don’t think there’s any issue. The issue comes when you federate, get everyone used to being able to interact with that user base and that content, and then defederate. The end result might be the same amount of users on lemmy in either case, but i’d wager the reception at that point is totally different.
In the first scenario, there is only slow and steady growth.
In the second, there is slow and steady growth, followed by huge, rapid growth, followed by a sudden decline that would make user interaction drop off a cliff, while the content and interaction is still available, just on another platform. I’d bet most people won’t be interested in continuing to use a “dead” platform.
Not if their communities and friends leave for threads.net because by the time the defederate occurs most of the communities either are on threads.net or have threads.net equivilants.
You can't have a community without the community part of it.
Why would their existing communities and friends leave for threads.net if they are on Mastodon to begin with? Most fediverse users I find seem to be pretty passionate about the platform, I doubt they will leave just because their friends are on Threads.
I say they can just make a Threads account for when they want to interact with those friends. It isn't that hard. I use different services to check my bank balance or to pay my electric bill.
Because a lot of the new traffic is really less passionate about fediverse, and more passionate about getting away from Reddit and Twitter. Plus the friends/communities people will make that come from that group.
You're thinking too short-term and not after things have started to reach some normalcy again. And also that Meta is specifically trying to get in now while those communities are trying to form.
And what's wrong with people making that choice? I know some of the "mainstream" people on Mastodon right now left because of Twitter's craziness but would probably be open to having an account on Threads or Blue Sky. Why the paranoia about people making choices that are best for them? TBH Mastadon search sucks and finding accounts to follow is hard.
Because once these centralized services reach the point of defacto, they always just trying to push more and more of what they want. We're practically hitting a bubble at the moment of every social platform that took over trying to nickle and dime. It's the reason for all of this in the first place.
Facebook - Well it was always crap.
Reddit - killed all the forums, now trying to own all the text as content, making lives harder for it's moderators, and continuing not to pay them for the clearly thankless job. Quality of posts has degraded.
twitter - messed up the entire purpose of their checkbox, keeps trying to find various ways to make money, entire quality of platform quickly degrading due to server migration
Youtube - Has started pushing for more ads, and punishing users who don't watch said ads.
People think about the short-term too easily, and then just kick and scream when it's already too late, and moving requires a ton of coordinated work, and "putting up with", making new things work, because everyone let the last thing get screwed over.
The constant cycle of letting products get ruined and moving on gets annoying after awhile.
It's too easy to say "why not?" and very difficult to word "Because it always ends the same"
People have a tendency to flock to centralized services. Even on here the majority of activity takes place on Lemmy.world, the fediverse already has a potential centralization problem.
With your point on YouTube, a fediverse version of YouTube that has a similar level and amount of content is impossible due to hosting costs. I have yet to see anyone willing to subsidize a fediverse version of YouTube.
Tbh it’s far more likely they’ll implement extensions to activitypub that are specific only to threads & make activitypub users want them - but can’t have them - this peeling off users for them vs a slower moving, free & collaborative platform.
Imho to avoid a Google loves XMPP (they pretty well killed it) situation ActivityPub servers need to largely block Threads completely or face being extinguished in much the same way as XMPP. Don’t give them a foothold & don’t trust that a private entity like Meta will play nice, they aren’t joining to be a peer, they’re joining to either take it over or kill the competition.
I mean, how is a bot not already crawling through public sites like Lemmy and Mastodon for the purposes of AI training? Federated or unfederated, if you are providing social media services that data you have is already out there.
Is there a way to block meta in lemmy? Im in the lemmy.world instance, or is it up to the developers and maintainers of each lemmy instance?
I 'member XMPP
Neat trick.
_... longing look across from Lemmy. _
Someone want to explain how to get followers on there? Feel like posting to the wind on that site?
This issue is going to divide the fediverse. You've got instances defederating from Threads, and instances defederating from instances that won't defederate from Threads. I feel like there are going to be two clearly divided and disconnected sides to the fediverse now.
Wait, their server is online already?
So we're all pro federation and decentralization, until we aren't... I think this is a very preemptive and paranoid measure, but thankfully it will work out just as the technology was built for, some will block, some wont, everyone will make their choice, and be happy in their corner of the internet.
That's disingenuous. It's not like Meta is some unknown party here with a clean reputation. They have a history, one that repeatedly shows they couldn't care less for the fundamental freedoms of the fediverse. Just like in society, for us to build free platforms where everyone is welcome, we must paradoxically not tolerate those that wish to wield the freedom of the platform against itself.
Except Meta by it's nature will aim towards Centralization. They're contradictive to the concept. It doesn't even take much thought to see the issue here.
Also as app_priori pointed out, Almost every instance already has a list of defederated instances.
Ever heard of Mastodon blocklists? I mean defederation has been happening for a while.
But I think that's fine. Instances should have every right to block instances that they disagree with.
This is like starting to date a known habitual cheater
Thanks!
Would defederating make things worse? I would want to see posts from these users and blocking them would force users to use Meta's app and in turn more likely for users to switch over and create accounts on their app.
I understand its a big scary corporate business but the fedaverse should be open. Closing off a potential big userbase does not seem to be the smartest move and it opens up the rabithole of instances starting to block each other left and right, ruining the entire point.
Blocking instances has been standard practice for ages on mastodon, it's an important moderation tool to keep radical right-wing instances at bay. Without it, the overall experience would be much worse. Of course there will always be a debate about which instances should be defederated and which shouldn't, but as another commenter already mentioned, everyone will be able to make their choice and find their own little corner.
It's Meta that would kill the fediverse.
Read: How to Kill a Decentralised Network (such as the Fediverse)
I doubt you read what I posted but ok
lol you’re all so dramatic and pretentious no wonder mastodon never took off. Threads will have more users than the entirety of Mastodon on ONE instance. They can stand entirely on their own and offer a superior content experience than a bunch of angry nerds yelling at the clouds. Mastodon is just a bunch of people mad at other platforms. That’s 90% of the content.
We're standing effectively at the beginning of the race for mass adoption of the federation concept and you're declaring mastodon a failure based on the content of the earliest adopters. Lemmy is also 90% reddit refugees and discussions about the reddit refugees if you're using "All" as your sole metric. Granted, reddit refugees were able to coordinate a mass migration that will probably be far more effective at creating lasting community with rich content at lemmy/kbin federated sites than twitter refugees, but it's a bit early to say mastodon "never took off."