Not sure if corporate ball-washer or incredibly naïve. Facebook (not using their attempt at rebranding) have more than enough resources to research new and innovative ways to screw over federated instances for their gain. Their goal isn't to win, it's to completely dominate. But I'm sure a plucky bunch of volunteers stand a chance against a demonstrably malevolent corporation with infinite money.
I've had nothing to do with Facebook or its offshoots since 2015. They've used their algorithms to pump all sorts of disinformation and manufactured outrage at the expense of society. That alone should be enough for people to defederate. The abusive information gathering is just the shit icing on a turd cake.
I will likely be shifting to an instance that defederates from Facebook. If that makes me "toxic", that's a cross I'm willing to bear.
The truly toxic idea, though, is that Mastodon instances should not only refuse to federate with Threads, but they should refuse to federate with other servers that do federate with Threads
It's really, sincerely not. Facebook is a virus and it's impossible to interact with it without being infected.
As much as Meta is an awful company, it's not a biohazard. The crowds of people in it and who interact with its platforms don't carry it in their bodies like a plague. And this is what it really is about, the people.
I believe defederation is a mistake because this is an opportunity to show people over there, who are possibly freshly out of Twitter and looking for a place to settle in, that there are better platforms to be in.
And the fact is Threads has what, 10M users already? And Mastodon has like 2M? They're already a success and leeching the 2M off of Mastodon isn't a big success for them.
My fear was that Threads was going to steal users into their ecosystem but if there's going to be federation, right now it looks to me like Mastodon actually stands to benefit more than Threads from it (not taking into account EU regulatory systems).
The crowds of people in it and who interact with its platforms don't carry it in their bodies like a plague.
Have you explored any of the research on the neurochemistry of social media? It's too early to have a strong foundation, but what's there isn't good. Facebook is absolutely designing their algorithm to change your brain chemistry to suit their purposes, which means lots of toxicity so they can feed your "engagement" to advertisers. It absolutely physically changes your brain, and it's not for the better.
And this is what it really is about, the people.
It's not about the people. It's about whether you can trust their servers talking to yours. It's about how much of the community they can split out into terrible "Facebook compatible" servers that they can bully their way into controlling.
There's no path to federating with anything Facebook owns not being a catastrophe.
There is something to what you are saying, but at this point you are overblowing it and otherizing people just because they participate in a social media platform you don't approve of. Yes, social media alters people's neurochemistry, but it doesn't mean Thread's users are mind controlled by Mark Zuckerberg.
And it is about the people. However much you don't like the company itself, and I don't either, there are millions of people there that are worth engaging with. Treating it as a faceless evil monolith is oversimplifying the matter.
It's also almost conspiracionist how these discussions have been going. How exactly will they bully their way into controlling a decentralized ecosystem? If you think Meta can just pressure every admin and none of them would resist, not only that is putting no confidence in the Fediverse, what makes you think defederating is going to prevent that from happening? If you start from the assumption that nobody has any principles and corporate influence can't be resisted, then it's all for nothing. It would be only a matter of time for the Fediverse to be swallowed.
But as far as motivations and structure goes, I don't think it is so fragile.
I'm merely describing the actual real physical changes that Facebook causes, on purpose. Every single click you make on Facebook makes you a worse human being.
Those people are still welcome to join here. They just shouldn't be permitted to do it through a server known to be malicious. Facebook is malware and letting it connect to your server makes your server just as dangerous.
Monopolies don't just exist when you literally only have one choice. Having 90% of the market in and of itself is an extremely powerful position. It happens all the time to decentralized systems.
It's not just Facebook that causes neurochemical effects, it's every social media that people use compulsively. To be fair I don't doubt that they deliberately try to manipulate their users, but that's not something they have full control over.
Every single click you make on Facebook makes you a worse human being.
Come on. Really?
There is criticizing Meta as a company, for which there are plenty of reasons, and then there is fearmongering. If you think Meta is Satan I don't disagree, but hold back on judging the users for the sin of existing there. I don't think my aunt who used to send me good morning messages on Facebook is getting worse every click.
Those people are still welcome to join here.
Which is exactly why I want them to see us and know that we exist. Isn't it so bad for them to be on Meta? Lets show there are alternatives. Not everyone is keeping up with the Fediverse, and many people hear of Mastodon only to not understand it and forget about it. If they can see the Fediverse and realize that people have a better experience in it, they might finally make the jump.
As far as monopoly goes, that is a forgone conclusion. Federation or defederation, they immediately became the largest and most influential Twitter alternative. Once it gets on ActivityPub. it will be the largest instance. That's not something that can be stopped. Seems to me that by cutting ourselves off of it we are only isolating ourselves into a niche out of fear.
The article fails to go over the scenario of fediverse instances falling in line with whatever moderation rules facebook enforces in fear of getting defederated. That is a natural reaction that is really difficult to overcome.
Why would that happen? The majority of instance admins have already said they'll defederate with Threads. I doubt there are large number of instance who actively want to not only federate with Threads, but want to federate so bad that they'll change their own moderation practices against their users' wishes.
And I’m not talking about defederated instances. Those have made a stance. It’s great we seem to be at the majority here, but new instances will pop up overtime, user counts will shift, policies will change.
I'm kinda baffled at how little trust people have on the Fediverse. People talk like every single instance is one soft breeze from collapsing and giving into the first Big Tech company to glance their way, and they best that we can hope is to fence it off to ward off the inevitable temptation. If that's how it is, it doesn't bode well for the future, regardless of Meta's presence.
The Fediverse is fragile. Especially Lemmy. Any more of yesterday’s XSS shenanigans (welcome back to 2010!) and Lemmy will get the reputation of impossible to trust. Similar to how Google+ was a “ghosttown” with a few hundred million users, a few million of which were actually active.
The fediverse is not fragile. It's been around for a decade and a half during which time large corporate networks have taken over the world and then faded away. It's always been small and likely always will be, but that isn't a failure when your objective is to have a nice, communal network instead of a corporate, ad network that makes you $$$.
Running a fediverse server is notoriously taxing. I don't see people deciding to start up a node just so they can spend their time enforcing policies they don't believe in that were handed down from Meta. The large majority of people who decide to start their own instance are probably doing it to gain some level of freedom over their social interactions online and falling in line with a large corporate overlord is antithetical to that
I don't think we're arguing different points. Even the largest instances were started by individuals not large companies. These are hobbyists doing something they think is fun or a useful/beneficial service. Their reasons for starting an instance (kbin, pleroma, lemmy, friendica, etc) are likely directly opposed to falling in line with policies from Meta.
While I think that the article is correct in stating that mastodon isn't currently a serious competitor to facebook, it's possible that it (or something else based of activitypub) might become that one day. I think that there's a decent chance that facebook might want to prevent fediverse spaces from potentially becoming serious competitors, and even if that's not the main reason why their implementing activitypub, if e.g. mastodon ever does get to a point where it can challange meta (which I think most of us are hoping!) then facebook will use the position of power they will have over activitypub to try to prevent that. I think it's a misstake to give facebook any power of our spaces because that means essentially giving up on the idea of an internet not controlled by large corporations like facebook.
Definitely. And I don't think this article is "right" or does predict future (because it can change in a drop of a hat) but with all these doom and gloom comments about Meta/Facebook ruining ActivityPub I enjoy hearing about opposing (and valid imo) views.
But like I commented somewhere else, there is something here that Mastodon and ActivityPub can gain here. Threads is already big (10M users or something) compared to Mastodon (2M users or something). My biggest fear was that Threads was going leech users off of ActivityPub but looking how things are, there's a chance it would go the other way with Mastodon gaining users. And you're absolutely correct that Meta won't play nice but I don't really see how they'd be able to stop the growth Mastodon would've potentially already gotten. But what do I know.
"Meta is coming! If Threads is allowed to become part of the Fediverse, it will destroy it! It will steal your data! It will inject ads onto your timeline! It will corrupt Mastodon into being everything you hate about Facebook and Twitter combined!"
The author dedicates gobs of prose to illustrate their weak theories while on the other hand mocking the legitimate concerns people have, implying they are childish. And in reality most of the things people are concerned about will absolutely, certainly happen.
micro.coyotetracks.org
Hot