this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
349 points (96.3% liked)

Fediverse

17795 readers
29 users here now

A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.

Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".

Getting started on Fediverse;

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
deadsuperhero@lemmy.ml
wakest@lemmy.ml
349
Fedi Garden to Instance Admins: "Block Threads to Remain Listed" (wedistribute.org)
submitted 8 months ago by deadsuperhero@lemmy.ml to c/fediverse@lemmy.ml
173 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Server indexes of places for newcomers to join can be instrumental for Fediverse adoption. However, sudden rule changes can leave some admins feeling pressure to change policies in order to remain listed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Maybe I’m just being naive, but this seems like an argument in favor of federating with Threads. One of the reasons Facebook and Instagram are so effective at driving engagement is that users have basically no ability to curate, sort, or filter the content that they see, especially since third-party clients are banned. You can’t even view most things without logging in.

The implementation of ActivityPub in Threads is a strange departure in this context - (federated) Mastodon users can view all of the content Threads has to offer without subjecting themselves to Meta’s arguably predatory curation algorithms. It almost seems like an escape for people who want to use a Meta-sized platform without Meta getting its grubby little fingers all over your mental wellbeing.

If people are worried that Threads will affect likes and comments (and therefore like/comment-based sorting algorithms) on other instances, it should always be possible to exclude Threads’s contribution to those metrics, no?

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

f people are worried that Threads will affect likes and comments (and therefore like/comment-based sorting algorithms) on other instances, it should always be possible to exclude Threads’s contribution to those metrics, no?

That's one of the effects of defederating. And you are still ignoring the overall point of the comment 2 layers up from your reply.

Really I think you are losing the forest for the trees. Meta/Facebook/Zuck is a known quantity. They will corrupt and exploit any environment they are a part of via any means they can. We don't need to be able to predict every last detail of how they will do so to know it is true. They have a track record of being awful, anti-consumer corporate citizens. WHY would we want to try to invite them in and try to contain them? Can we make the fediverse invisible to them? Of course we can't, but why would we cooperate in any way?

Folks who don't think this is a problem can use an instance that federates with them, just as I've chosen ( and will always choose) an instance that does not.

There is no reasonable argument for trying to be a good neighbor to Meta, because you can always, always be sure that Meta has no concern for being a good neighbor to you.

[–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They will corrupt and exploit any environment they are a part of via any means they can.

Right, unless they can’t, though. Ideally the Fediverse should be resistant to this kind of influence without resorting to defederation. I’m also concerned that defederating from Threads will make more Threads users than Mastodon users.

We don't need to be able to predict every last detail of how they will do so to know it is true.

I mean, some idea of what they might do would be nice.

They have a track record of being awful, anti-consumer corporate citizens. WHY would we want to try to invite them in and try to contain them?

I couldn’t care less about Meta itself. My interest begins and ends with Threads users. There are a ton of people that would never give the Fediverse a try for one silly reason or another—predominantly, I would argue, the fear of the unknown—and this seems like it could be an opportunity to overcome that obstacle if leveraged correctly. The prospect of everyone and our parents using social media that is not completely beholden to Meta is exciting to me.

Again, maybe I’m wrong, but this whole thing is basically an experiment, isn’t it? I’d like to see what happens before reaching any conclusions.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I’m also concerned that defederating from Threads will make more Threads users than Mastodon users.

Already done, and by an order of magnitude at least. (probably many orders, I don't have the numbers at hand)

I mean, some idea of what they might do would be nice.

You can look at their entire history for that. And somewhere in this very discussion some other person has given a very plausible overview of their potential EEE approach. I'll add a link to that comment later when I have time to find it again.

But, I'm starting to realize that no amount of evidence is sufficient for folks who want to federate with Meta, and at the end of the day my freedom ends where yours begins, so although I will continue to advocate for defederation and flee any instance that does not make that choice, I very sincerely encourage you to do you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook#Criticisms_and_controversies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_involving_Meta_Platforms

Here's a couple recent individual ones:

https://theintercept.com/2024/03/26/meta-gaza-censorship-warren-sanders/

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/03/netflix-ad-spend-led-to-facebook-dm-access-end-of-facebook-streaming-biz-lawsuit/

The prospect of everyone and our parents using social media that is not completely beholden to Meta is exciting to me.

I firmly believe that hoping Meta isn't going to be the worst possible company they can this time is not the way to achieve that, and is in fact actively working against that future possibility.

I've been alive, adult, and working in IT for the entirety of the existence of Facebook, so I've had a long time to see everything I needed to see about them.

[–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

But, I'm starting to realize that no amount of evidence is sufficient for folks who want to federate with Meta

This is an incorrect assumption, because

And somewhere in this very discussion some other person has given a very plausible overview of their potential EEE approach. I'll add a link to that comment later when I have time to find it again.

I would be very interested to read this! There are definitely limits to my optimism here. I think Meta is a horrible company and I don’t expect them to act in the best interests of the Fediverse; I’m just not yet convinced that them giving up what is essentially free and ad-free API access to one of their platforms cannot be used to our advantage. Threads federation could absolutely be catastrophic, but it’s also possible that it’s a good opportunity; that’s all I’m saying.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago

This is an incorrect assumption, because

And somewhere in this very discussion some other person has given a very plausible overview of their potential EEE approach. I’ll add a link to that comment later when I have time to find it again.

In a non snarky way I say that if the dozens of actual past actions linked in the two wikipedia links, plus the recent events I linked, still leave you in doubt, I don't see how a plausible but still speculative EEE summary is going to tip you over, but I'll clap anyway if it does, so:

https://lemmy.ml/comment/9792668

Quoting @Gestrid@lemmy.ca :

What’s the number of Threads users compared to Lemmy? If the number of Threads users greatly outweigh the number of Lemmy users, then we’d simply be drowned out by all the Threads posts. That’s part one of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

Extend adds functionality to Threads that Lemmy either can’t support or won’t support for a while due to development time. People migrate to Threads because Lemmy is “missing” functionality. Plus, though I’m not clear on the exact legal specifications, proprietary code can be added to open-source code, and the proprietary code would be copyrighted. In other words, Lemmy devs would have to figure out a way to interact with and mimic Threads’ proprietary code using open-source code.

Extinguish is when Threads’ support of Lemmy is eventually dropped. The users left on Lemmy have suddenly lost a huge amount of content, and they’re left with fewer users than before Threads enabled federation.

There are definitely limits to my optimism here.

I do feel a little bit bad being the table pounding pessimist in this circumstance, but I don't see how one can look at this company's history and come to any other conclusion. It frustrates me like few other areas of disagreement about tech do to imagine folks look at everything Meta has done and think we need to wait and see how they will handle this.

Regardless, I appreciate the conversation. :)