119

Threads: We've Seen This Before (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago by confluence@lemmy.world to c/fediverse@lemmy.ml

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

We really shouldn't take this Meta thing lightly.

They could offer the slickest interface and keep people locked to their friends. That interface can use protocols that make it difficult/impossible for non-Threads instances to play ball (ooh this cool new feature is only available through the Threads app; Oh, mybasement.world.ml.xyz can't read that content). There are many ways to Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish, we've seen Meta do it before (e.g. XMPP), and I'm sure we haven't even thought of some ways Threads could EEE.

I think defederation from Meta's instances is probably our only option to protect what we have.

top 27 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] RomanRoy@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

From their FAQ

[-] flathead@quex.cc 24 points 1 year ago

Meaning you'll see what meta wants you to see. Sounds like same shit, different platform.

[-] CrazyDuck@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Wasn't XMPP EEE'd by Google? Not to say that Meta is any better of course

[-] rglullis@communick.news 15 points 1 year ago

There was no "Extinguish". XMPP still continues on.

By the way, Facebook also did the same. The original Facebook Messenger was based on XMPP as well.

[-] flancian@social.coop 8 points 1 year ago

@CrazyDuck @confluence ahoy!

No, I don't think so? As far as I can tell all extensions were public, in particular Jingle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMPP, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingle_(protocol)

Disclosure: I worked on gTalk towards the end of its lifetime and was the person responsible for (sadly) turning down federation.

[-] CrazyDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Do you remember/are at liberty to elaborate on the reasoning and course of events at the time that lead to defederating?

[-] flancian@social.coop 3 points 1 year ago

@CrazyDuck Yes, I believe so :) Of course this is just how I remember it, it reflects my opinions and not of my employer's, etc.

From my rough memory, around the time this happened in 2013 the following was true:

Federation was considered to be already languishing due to relatively little usage aside from big instances like AOL (who were going down in any case). Actual people running their own individual/community instances were relatively few, and a significant fraction were spammers :(

[-] flancian@social.coop 3 points 1 year ago

@CrazyDuck

Developers in the chat space in G had decided to implement their own protocol for Hangouts, the "next generation" chat app. The consensus seemed to be that going with an in-house protocol would provide enough extra freedom to allow G to implement and ship features faster (whereas innovation on top of XMPP was deemed relatively hard).

[-] flancian@social.coop 3 points 1 year ago

@CrazyDuck

XMPP was, back then, considered unfit for the transition to mobile as it was a very 'chatty' protocol and that kills battery on mobile devices. I've heard this has been solved/worked around since? But I haven't looked into how this was achieved, if at all, and whether we could have taken that route instead back then.

[-] flancian@social.coop 2 points 1 year ago

@CrazyDuck of course moving to a proprietary protocol doesn't mean that federation must die. Indeed we kept federation alive for users for a while by bridging gTalk (legacy, still supporting federation) and Hangouts (proprietary). It was the dream of at least a few (myself included) to open up the Hangouts API and/or build federation on top of it, but it was not prioritized -- I take part of the responsibility for that, even if I was just an individual contributor: I could have done it as a 20%.

[-] CrazyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Thanks! It's extremely insightful to get a peek behind the scenes like this. Stuff like this always happens behind closed doors and threads like yours really help shine some light :)

[-] django@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 year ago

Facebook Messenger is based on XMPP.

[-] jalda@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago

WhatsApp too

[-] rysiek@szmer.info 3 points 1 year ago

I don't think it is anymore.

[-] smorks@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

essentially, yes. Google Talk was based on XMPP.

[-] amiuhle@feddit.de 13 points 1 year ago

I think there should be an alliance of instances that defederate from any instance that federates with Meta.

[-] tomasz@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 year ago

It already exists: https://fedipact.online/

[-] amiuhle@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They pledge to defederate from Meta, I'd go one step further and defederate from any instance that federates with Meta.

[-] coderade@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 year ago

And draw the line there? Or what about instances that federate with instances federated with meta? I think defederating meta is more than enough

[-] supergrobi@mastodon.berlin 1 points 1 year ago

@amiuhle @tomasz

I don't understand all the excitement, did you per chance read this?
https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2023/07/what-to-know-about-threads/

[-] KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago

The guy was paid by meta

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago

The Defederated Federation 🤭

[-] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

think of it like when united federation of planets didn't include romulans ;)

[-] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 year ago

That just gives meta more reasons to make extensions to activitypub, or a fork, without consulting others first as nobody's even working with them...

If they're federating then at least they have some interest in keeping things compatible

[-] tourist@community.destinovate.com 3 points 1 year ago

I'll admit I checked it out just to see. Then I realized I actually don't know anybody who still uses Instagram and I didn't know what to talk about anyway, so I deleted it and blocked them from my instance.