this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
8 points (100.0% liked)

Fediverse

28502 readers
309 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A lot of people dislike it for the privacy nightmare that it is and feel the threat of an EEE attack. This will also probably not be the last time that a big corporation will insert itself in the Fediverse.

However, people also say that it will help get ActivityPub and the Fediverse go more mainstream and say that corporations don't have that much influence on the Fediverse since people are in control of their own servers.

What a lot of posts have in common is that they want some kind of action to be taken, whether it'd be mass defederating from Threads, or accept them in some way that does not harm the Fediverse as much.

What actions can we take to deal with Threads?

all 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 80085@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Threads doesn't need to do an EEE attack. They've already gained many more users than the entire Fediverse. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to not join the Fediverse at all.

I would never use Threads, but I would use a Mastodon instance that federated with Threads. I already see many journalists and content creators I like trying it out, who either stopped using Mastadon long ago or never even tried it in the first place. If Threads started doing things that negatively affected my experience, I would then switch to a Mastodon instance that wasn't federated with Threads.

[–] Scientician@waveform.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was recently asked by my employer if we should move our social media efforts to fediverse and my recommendation was that this community it's both too small and also would be hostile (rightly) to corporate empty posting.

As soon as threads has a web interface that's usable I will be starting up there...

You put your recycling in the blue can, compost in the green can and your corporate garbage on Meta.

[–] SGG@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The whole idea is they should setup their own instance, and try and encourage a community there.

Governments should also setup their own lemmy/mastadon instances as well, use it for PR/interaction.

[–] Scientician@waveform.social 2 points 1 year ago

I think we got to a point in corporate comms where everyone decided we have to post at a regular interval, even when there's nothing interesting happening.

This feela like a good time to revaluate what we do on social. I have thought about standing up an instance, but realistically we have our internal Teams that employees use... So they wouldn't use it, and I can't imagine myself subscribing to a bunch of company instances, so it seems like it's an effort for nobody.

That said we often put on community events like hackathons. I think situations like that are perfect for posting on our cyber security servers.

Less white noise trash is better.

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Join the pact and not just vow but actually do defederate Threads as soon as it comes online: https://fedipact.online/

[–] silversnow__@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

i appreciate the message but what is that ui design???

the floating hearts that go over the text. the neon pink background. the fact that this serious pact is in all lowercase (i know im typing in all lowercase, but i think the fedipact is different from an internet forum). the weird text animation for hyperlinks that makes it unreadable for a second. this does not lead to any reasonable credibility

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That is what nonconformity looks like. The internet of old looked similar to this. Nowadays, everything has ample whitespace, and is boringly styled, and ads everywhere.

That would be how I look at this page.

[–] schrodinger@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Webpages have ample whitespace and "boring" styling for accessibility and readability. Nonconformity for the sake of nonconformity is really stupid.

[–] Barrelephants@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ignore it. Defederate. Defederate with any instances that chose to federate with it. Keep the fediverse small and independent. It's nice here, let's keep it nice.

[–] Boiglenoight@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yeap. It doesn’t to go mainstream; it’s already successful.

[–] Elkaki123@vlemmy.net 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I keep asking but haven't gotten an answer, why must instances that block meta also block those that federate with META? Wouldn't blocking META be enough, as you wouldn't see their posta, nor users, nor comments in any way after blovking the domain?

Is this punitive or is yhere a reason I'm mising?

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

In a federated system, users on Alice can see and post into communities hosted on Bob, eg alice/c/funplace@bob. When Meta tries to join, Alice chooses not to federate - avoid giving meta free content, protect its users from 'bad' meta communities, preemptively block toxic meta users, whatever - but Bob does federate. Alice users can't see meta/c/advertising, there's no way to subscribe to Alice/c/advertising@meta. Both Alice and Meta users can see Bob/c/funplace, and so alice users can see anything that meta users post there and meta 'gets' any content that alice users contribute. Bob effectively acts like a tunnel between alice and meta users.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I got the impression that somehow your activity 3rd hand can still be passed on via the intermediary instance to Threads, and then becomes part of their dataset. I could be wrong, I'm not sure how that information gets passed on in the backend.

[–] xavier666@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you are worried about your data falling into the hands of Meta, don't worry, they already have it. Lemmy is incredibly easy to scrape by design.

What we should be more worried about is

  • Whether we can become a better and more vibrant community
  • Whether we can properly advertise that we don't track users and don't have ads
  • Whether our instances can be equally performant

This is the only way we can have a steady influx of new users.

[–] flashmedallion@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Agreed, the data concern is a red herring. Might as well do a "I hereby revoke consent for Facebook to take my data..." post for all the good it will do you.

Block Threads because of the potential impact it can have on the quality of experience here. That's a good enough reason. Nobody joined a lemmy so that they could keep in touch with people who use social media to gossip about brands and influencers.

[–] asterzura@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

In my opinion, the people that use Instagram and will potentially use Threads aren't the ones who will get into the Fediverse.

They will probably not even know that this exists in the app as it just puts you directly in threads.net.

Also, there's the option that this is just a 'trend thing' that will die in a week or two, probably because people won't get used to or due to legal problems (as it's already happening).

Edit: typo.

[–] forvirreth@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I use instagram on the daily (mostly lurking). It's very good for inspiration and updates in my hobby, which is a small community basically only on instagram. Due to how it all works and is set up its fairly impossible to move it elsewhere (for the time being).

I do like it here though, this is nice. Not gonna mess with threads at all, that's for sure.

[–] mtnwolf@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I dropped Instagram for Pixelfed a week or two ago. It's a small community, but friendly and nobody is trying to sell me anything lol.

[–] meldroc@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Push celebrities, influencers, and businesses to create their own instances, outside of Meta.

If they just use a Threads account, then the Fediverse gets made irrelevant. Along come the Three E's, and Meta walls up the garden and starts putting billboards up everywhere.

Celebrities, influencers, & businesses need to know that they can now have a social media presence that they own, rather than rent, where they can make the rules for the communities they host. It's good for them in that it keeps their Fediverse presence theirs, they get to call the shots and choose how their instance is set up.

Because if enough people have a strong Fediverse presence outside of Threads land, it'll make it much harder for Meta to pull the plug.

[–] HopperMCS@twisti.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm going to recommend that if W3C starts accepting changes to the AP standard from Meta, the community must maintain a fork that rips out any offending parts.

[–] whofearsthenight@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The part that most concerns me is that meta is going to be able to use it's considerable influence to fuck with AP. Although, at this point I'm 50/50 on whether they even bother with federation.

[–] HopperMCS@twisti.ca 3 points 1 year ago

The W3C has shown in the past that it can't be trusted not to take bribes. See alse: EME

[–] panja@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago
[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think we should defederate threads. It would only give Meta a walled garden which we will be outside of. Let them embrace us here and encourage everybody to scatter across instances so they can't defederate reasonably

[–] fetchezlavache@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That actually sounds like a good idea. Are there any drawbacks to this that we're missing though?

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago

The drawbacks is that we aren't showing mastodon as an alternative. If we defederate we cannot tell people it's "threads without the ads". I know people talk about Embrace, Extend, Extinguish with Google, but Meta have been rather keen on decentralisation recently, even claiming that they want their "Metaverse" platform to be decentralised

[–] Strolleypoley@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I want nothing to do with meta or facebook.

If this gets serious I'm out of here as fast as I dumped reddit.

~tildes it is.

[–] TempleSquare@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's a clear EEE attack. Do not federate!

[–] emperorbenguin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

This makes zero sense. There is no financial incentive for an EEE attack, and these companies don't do anything without financial incentive.

Your content isn't original or interesting enough for meta to want it, and even if they did, they already have access to it without federation.

Threads on its own already dwarfs the entirety of the global fediverse by orders of magnitude. Anyone screaming EEE is just fucking stupid.

[–] themarty27@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Sorry, but I'm a bit out of the loop, what is an EEE attack? When I look it up all I get is eastern equine encephalitis, which I somehow doubt is related.

[–] kometes@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Make an account and use chatgpt to shit post on it.

[–] rcmaehl@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Ah, the u/spez r/programming approach. A classic.

[–] d00phy@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The EEE argument is a red herring at the moment. Sure, in the future, Meta and others could get clever in ways we can't imagine right now, but currently it's a "sky is falling" kind of threat. As it currently stands, the path from Threads launching to "Meta killing the fediverse" has all the logical progression as the Underpants Gnomes.

[–] SUPERcrazy3530@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're right. It's all FUD at this point. There's nothing stopping servers from federating for now and then disconnecting later if an actual issue comes up.

[–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem is like the boiling frog analogy. Its never easy to get consensus on whether the latest insult is too much and so inertia holds everyone in place until its too late.

[–] SUPERcrazy3530@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You don't need to get consensus though. The Fediverse isn't a monolith and you can change servers if you feel the one you're on isn't working for you anymore.

[–] ttmrichter@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yep. As the old saying goes: Divided we stand, united we fall.

No, wait...

[–] SUPERcrazy3530@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What is the point of using something that's federated if we all have to do things the same way? Sounds like you just want a centralized site where you get to make the rules.

[–] R51@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Well we they could just be centralized in their own decentralized instance lol

[–] Strolleypoley@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Threats is a better name for that data collecting pos.

[–] count0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Should 'we' do?"

Nothing. If people and/or communities coming in through Threads are engaging in good faith, cool, more nice folks to have a community with. People/communities engaging in bad faith get blocked/defederated as is already common practice (and seems to be working outstandingly already, looking at average quality of posts and discourse "here" as compared to the "big platforms").

When Meta/Threads is hosting communities I like to see/be a part of, I'll figure out how to subscribe/integrate those. Besides that, they're free and welcome to run echo chambers in their own instances and communities, I don't see how any of that would ever show up on my feed.

[–] ttmrichter@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Threads is Meta. By definition they are not engaging in good faith. Good faith is not a Meta value.

[–] count0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

Is it (more) about Meta themselves, or rather about individual users, though?

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think we should defederate any corp version of any federated app. Not due to privacy or anything, but because it silos anyone using those services from everyone else. Bluntly, I don't want people's B.S. propeganda on the fediverse, and the stupid crap conspiracy farm that Facebook and other places have become.

I'm sure it won't stop the stupid from reaching us, but it should limit the amount and impact that those users have. Additionally, it will remove a lot of high quality content from those services making them less viable for corps to run and maintain. They will happily farm the fediverse for content to attract users they can monitize.... I'm not a fan of handing them more content to steal while they share zero of the profits of that content with either the creators or the communities that handle that data.

I'm not doing their job for them in promoting entertaining and informative posts just so they can make money on it. They want it, they can put forth the effort themselves.

[–] kogasa@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

Put another way, given the size of Meta and its userbase, it's completely infeasible for a typical instance to moderate on their behalf, so defederating due to insufficient moderation makes sense. Just like with Beehaw and sh.itjust.works or whatever. (I take for granted that moderation will suck ass because gestures vaguely at Facebook.)

That's a good enough reason for me. I also think federating with Meta is a bad idea on principle and out of self-interest, since they will extinguish the fediverse at the first possible opportunity and federating with them gives them the chance to draw in users and later wall them off.

[–] JoYo@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

threads will never federate.