How does this instance feel about this growing pact against federating with Meta?
How does this instance feel about this growing pact against federating with Meta?
Meta/Instagram launched a new product called Threads today (working title project92). It adds a new interface for creating text posts and replying to them, using your Instagram account. Of note, Meta has stated that Threads plans to support ActivityPub in the future, and allow federation with ActivityPub services. If you actually look at your Threads profile page in the app your username has a threads.net tag next to it - presumably to support future federation.
Per the link, a number of fediverse communities are pledging to block any Meta-directed instances that should exist in the future. Thus instance content would not be federated to Meta instances, and Meta users would not be able to interact with instance content.
I'm curious what the opinions on this here are. I personally feel like Meta has shown time and time again that they are not very good citizens of the Internet; beyond concerns of an Eternal September triggered by federated Instagram, I worry that bringing their massive userbase to the fediverse would allow them to influence it to negative effect.
I also understand how that could be seen to go against the point of federated social media in the first place, and I'm eager to hear more opinions. What do you think?
You're viewing a single thread.
Please for the love of Internet connectivity as a whole: block anything remotely attached to Facebook, not just the instance, but in general Internet daily life.
Zuck should die forgotten.
It does not go against the point of the fediverse to do so, either. Why would the ability to do this be baked into the code if it was not the intent to use it in certain situations? This would be a perfect use.
I can see maybe certain instances wanting it for whatever reason, but I'll be packing up and moving to one that blocks it if this one allows it.
Agreed. With the nature of the Fediverse, defederating with anything from Meta doesn't really restrict access for those who actually wish to interact with them. They can simply join their next nefarious venture.
The drawbacks to interacting with a company that so obviously only chases profit above all else far outweigh any "benefits " of their content.
Ser Robin had the right idea: bravely run away.
Brave, brave sir Robin.
Playing devil's advocate a bit here:
Considering that I rate Facebook as evil as Google, would you support "defederating" Google Mail from other mail services?
In my opinion, the fediverse/ActivityHub is just the underlying protocol to enable people to connect to each other just like SMTP and whether I want to contact someone using a service provider that I don't like is my choice and should not be the choice of my service provider...
My understanding is that the main problem is allowing them to get any foot in the door in the first place. They are not in it to be nice, they are in it to beat out and absorb the competition for their gain. The fediverse is about giving users a place to go that's not full of ads and algorithms. They only see us as untapped revenue streams.
While that's true, other instances will eventually also need to find a way to make money. And unless you're on the Facebook instance you shouldn't see their ads (unless they inject those ads as posts).
The Facebook crowd can only assimilate us when we switch to their instance. I see a point where new users would prefer a bigger, i.e. Facebookey instance over smaller ones when they don't know anything about the fediverse.
No. I disagree. They already used to keep tracking metadata on non-users (admittedly, I'm beyond sketchy on the details here), they're not at all welcome here.
They already know too much about me
If they get large enough, they will be able to force protocol changes.
That's fair but there's a difference between getting donation money to keep the server running (Wikipedia) and trying to get every cent you can from user data and targeted ads.
Adding on to the pile here:
I know many have said, but embrace, extend, extinguish is also a legitimate threat to the fediverse I feel. I think the scenario you've described is already happening, but it's natural compliment: Unless you pay the google/godaddy/squarespace/whomever racket, good luck getting any traffic from your personal, self-hosted email server. Even if it's fully signed from industry standard certificate providers, you still need to effectively pay the big email servers to have your traffic be not marked as defacto spam/malicious. If you run the show, you get to point the protocol and standard operating procedures. Meta has every capability to eat the fediverse more or less, and frankly I don't doubt they will if it is a profitable endeavor. I'm sure y'all have read this by Ploum, but it really articulates the genuine concern that is just as existential as implosion.
would you support “defederating” Google Mail from other mail services?
Not OP, but yes. They have entirely too much control over email traffic. You have to play ball with Alphabet or not at all if you want to host an email server today - I don’t want that to be the fate of the fediverse as well.
Don't you see how that would make e-mail worse for everyone that uses e-mail?
Imagine having an e-mail address but you couldn't send an e-mail to your friend because for whatever reason your e-mail server decided to not block Gmail. That makes e-mail worse for everyone.
It's the same here, we're trying to get away from social media silos and move towards a protocol that lets everyone participate. The kneejerk reaction here is to just create a new silo that has different owners instead of just being part of a network that shares a protocol.
Lol, as a tangent, this is literally what it's like trying to communicate with people in China. Everything from Email to XMPP you just have to try to figure out if the server can cross the great firewall. You've got to have 5x redundant background channels because sometimes one thing works on this wifi but not that wifi.
Am I allowed to say that here? Guess we'll find out...
Actually interesting.
That only makes it worse today because Alphabet took over so much. It doesn’t make anything worse if they are never allowed to gain that level of dominance. When they get to the “Extinguish” phase it’s already too late.
Effectively, this is the same debate about big banks. Should they be allowed to get too big to fail? Should we just go along with whatever the titans want? If so, I expect the fediverse to be short lived and just another FAANG/MSFT product soon.
I agree that Meta will attempt to EEE Fediverse. I don't think that they're a positive actor in this space at all.
But, the move to defeat them isn't to try to implement a blockade. There simply isn't any way to ensure that everyone would comply and the people that don't block Meta services will have access to billions of more potential users while the instances that do block Meta will find themselves as a backwater part of the Fediverse that the majority of the people on the planet cannot access from their existing social media account.
Right now Lemmy is made up of motivated and ideological people who were willing to leave Reddit because of the way it was being run. Having this group isolated from the networks that Meta is connected to is a positive thing for Meta. You would have all of the people who would be motivated to work against Meta's interests cut off in an isolated pocket of the Fediverse unable to affect Meta.
Open software doesn't have the userbase to strong arm Meta in this manner. The way you win is you outrun the Extend portion of the plan by creating software extensions that operate better than what Meta offers and use that to lure users off of Meta's services. This is made massively easier by them being part of the same federated network. You're no longer working against the Network Effect... users are unwilling to swap to new platforms because they lose access to their existing friends and content that they follow. This doesn't happen if your instance is federated with Meta services... users can freely swap if the experience is better.
Imagine having a chat account but you couldn’t send a message to a friend because Google decided they didn’t need third party interaction anymore
Yeah, blocking is bad. It's bad when Google does it and it would be bad if we did it.
I still use XMPP based chat services, Google's move in this area doesn't affect me at all because the protocol is open. ActivityPub is the same way... if Meta decides that they're going to block all non-Meta instances then our instance isn't affected. But as long as they're federating with us then their users can freely switch to non-Meta services without losing access to their existing friends and communities. That would not be true if we defederated from Meta.
Beating Meta has to be done by providing a better service, not by taking a tiny percentage of their population and hiding in a bubble on the Fediverse. Meta already has the user base, they're not worried about losing a few million users (especially ones who're ideologically motivated to oppose them).
The best move at this point is to stay federated and to rapidly update ActivityPub to provide more features. We have to out-Extend them, we cannot prevent the 'Embrace' part of the strategy... the existing Fediverse userbase is too small compared to Meta's users base.
Sure, if you hate it so much. Join a service that's excluded.
The people here now largely don't care about content from Meta. I don't even care personally if people don't want to switch from Meta to the fediverse.
I get being able to keep access to friends and their content, but a big draw of having this account is not being tied to me at all beyond my content and comments being semi publicly known to be from the same person.
The idea of federating to me seems to be being able to have one account with access to everything. That's not necessarily a benefit.
If the fediverse gets big enough it won't matter if they're able to access Meta content. The grass gets too green here to feel like you're missing out.
I don't even think them being cut off from the 'verse completely is the intent either. I personally don't want to be attached to them, so like I said, if this instance decides to that's fine. I will move to one that's not for myself. It doesn't have to be that big of a thing.
Just like your example, of you personally don't want to connect with Gmail, you join a network that's not connected. Everybody's happy.
I don't want to touch their content, and I feel like I'm large part the people that have moved here already mostly agree in not seeing value in a connection to Meta.
This will not always be the case, and for them that's fine.
I'm starting to get rant-y here, so I'll cut it off.
But back to the original point- if you don't want Google stuff, then yes, join a place without it. That's ok, and kind of the design of this setup.
I really believe the content here will surpass anything they can possibly contribute, and then making an account over on this side shouldn't be an impossible hurdle.