@pthenq1 It's interesting how this suggests they're rolling it out in the current strongest #Fediverse geographies 🤔 (bar Japan, but it's not mainstream here at all and Japan Fedi is a bit isolated due to difference in laws) #threads#project92#meta@kristian
@supernovae@_dmh@feditips This discussion is exactly the thing we need to be doing. As stated previously:
"Communication is our superpower. This account will boost and report on reasoned discourse on all sides of #Meta#P92#Threads discussion. No position is taken at this time other than support for open social media and opposition to corporate domination of the Fediverse."
It is an existential threat to the very core of Meta’s social media monopoly. Surprisingly, if the goal is to fight against Meta’s hegemony, the most effective strategy may be to federate with them.
“But Chris,” some of you might state, “Even you agree that it might be better to defederate Meta – and you’ve even set up notmeta.social for expressly this purpose.”
Yes, because it’s not everyone’s objective to fight Meta, and there should be spaces where fighting Meta isn’t top of mind. Not everyone wants to be part and parcel of a fight, and that’s okay.
Let’s first acknowledge the technology through which federation happens. #ActivityPub is an open standard protocol that enables the decentralized social networking that powers the Fediverse. It allows different social media platforms (#Mastodon, #Calckey, #Kbin, etc.) to interoperate, meaning that users on one platform can communicate with users on another platform. Federation is the process by which these platforms connect and share content, forming a decentralized network.
The most important thing to understand about ActivityPub is that, more than a technology to merely send and receive messages, it’s also a common ruleset – a gentleman’s agreement that everyone will play nice when sending and receiving messages.
Now when Meta opts to use ActivityPub, they’re abiding by the agreement: to play by the same rules as everybody else. Should they renege on this agreement, they are no longer using ActivityPub. They’re using something else.
But let’s assume for a moment that Meta is abiding to use ActivityPub, and they indeed will play by the same rules. Knowing Meta, this is a tall order – but still, let’s assume.
ActivityPub means that whatever of Meta’s userbase that’s exposed to federation will diversify into other platforms. This is because, through ActivityPub, smaller platforms can connect with each other and offer a combined user base that competes with Meta’s centralized network. This diversification reduces the dependence of users on a single platform, giving them more choices and potentially drawing them away from Meta.
This creates an erosion of Meta’s network effects. Meta’s entire monopoly is based on ownership of their platforms’ network effects, where the value of the platform increases as more users join. Suddenly, by federating, Meta no longer own the network effect. This is because federation challenges this by breaking down barriers between platforms, allowing users to interact regardless of the platform they are on. This reduces the exclusivity and advantage Meta holds, as the network effects become distributed across multiple interconnected platforms.
Federation also gives Meta’s users power that they never previously had. Federation promotes decentralization by giving users greater control over their data and interactions. With ActivityPub, users have the freedom to choose which platform they prefer without sacrificing connectivity. This user empowerment threatens Meta’s control over user data and engagement, potentially leading to a loss of influence and advertising revenue.
ActivityPub poses a tangible threat to Meta’s monopoly on social media. By choosing to federate, Meta might be opening Pandora’s box. The moment Meta’s users receive a message from a server not owned by Meta is the moment they’re exposed to something else beyond Meta’s control. Inevitably, this will create more diversity of ActivityPub-enabled platforms – not less. This will erode Meta’s network effects. For people who use Meta, the power of decentralization – giving them more freedom – will prove revelatory.
Of course, this is a fight. And just because Meta federates doesn’t mean it’s game over. In the next post, I will explore what Meta is hoping to gain by joining the #Fediverse.
@Daily_Twerk I envision a lobby server to be a specialized intermediary within the federated social media network. It would act as a connector, facilitating communication and content sharing between different social media platforms and #Threads. It would enable users from Threads to interact with users from other platforms in a seamless manner.
As for how specific federation configuration would work, that’s beyond the purview of this thread.
Nevertheless, here’s a suggestion. A plausible ActivityPub configuration involving a lobby server and Meta could establish a mutual read/write access between the lobby server and Meta, allowing seamless communication and content sharing. In this configuration, servers that do not federate with Meta would provide read access to the lobby server, enabling the lobby server to consume and display their content. However, these non-Meta servers would not grant write access to the lobby server, meaning that the lobby server would not have the ability to directly interact with or modify content on those servers. This configuration ensures that the lobby server can gather and showcase content from a diverse range of non-Meta servers while maintaining the integrity of individual server boundaries and user control over their own platforms.
I don’t know what you’re specifically asking for regarding hosting, nor do I understand what physical proximity has to do with federation itself. But a lobby server’s specific purpose it to promote greater Fediverse access for people who use Meta’s services.
One purpose in building lobby servers is to create a larger mass that reduces the dominance of Meta. By increasing the number of independent servers within the Fediverse and expanding the overall network, the reliance on Meta’s hardware infrastructure can be diminished. This approach distributes the load across a greater number of servers, reducing the concentration of power and control in the hands of a single entity like Meta.
But the purpose isn’t just to provide a mass of servers. The intent would be for lobby servers to act as strategic intermediaries, connecting diverse platforms within the Fediverse and facilitating seamless communication and content sharing. By bridging communities and promoting interoperability, lobby servers would empower Meta’s users to explore alternative platforms, reducing their reliance on Meta’s ecosystem. Additionally, lobby servers can contribute to a more competitive landscape by showcasing the value and benefits of non-Meta platforms, encouraging user migration and diversification.
@atomicpoet Another thought I had: #Meta might want to use #Threads as a way to test out advertising on a decentralized social network, before expanding their ads to other platforms like #Mastodon & #Misskey (both of those are already setup to display ads, but most instances do not utilize this feature).
@atomicpoet A big point not mentioned is moderation. Meta spends millions and still sucks at it. Even if only for a specific crowd I believe that will be a selling point. The media crowd was/is the lifeblood of Twitter. Meta started out by having #Threads tested by celebrities and content creators. It is a real possibility Meta will woo them with a separate instance for media that they can assure will be a safe space but will still have reach.
@atomicpoet@atomicpoet so… are you thinking that if the main instance i use doesn’t federate, i find a lobby server, make a secondary account there, friend grandma and aunt ethel on #threads, and then boost the content from my main account so they can see it? Thus letting us stay in contact (which i do miss now!) but showing them that there is somewhere else to go?
Obviously, #Meta has something to gain by federating through #ActivityPub. If they saw no benefit in joining the #Fediverse, they wouldn’t do it. So let’s explore what they might hope to achieve.
Meta might be hoping to re-enforce their dominance. This is obvious when you look at their immediate objective: to kill Twitter. Federating with other platforms actually strengthens their ability to do this because Twitter is unlikely to federate. And what’s more, Twitter closed off their API access. When Meta rolls out #P92 (a.k.a., #Threads), they’ll have a platform that’s much more adaptable and extensible than Twitter’s. This could lead to both devs and users abandoning Twitter in favour of Meta’s Twitter competitor.
Another assumption Meta might have is that their immense user base, combined with federated connections, would give it even more control over the decentralized network. They might hope that this user base will prove to result in Threads becoming the central hub of the Fediverse, allowing them to exert significant influence and dictate the terms of interoperability, potentially stifling competition and innovation.
This is a big gamble. So why might Meta want to make this gamble anyway?
Federation could serve as a strategic move by Meta to address antitrust concerns. By appearing open to interoperability, Meta could argue that it is fostering competition and avoiding a complete defederation scenario. This approach may allow Meta to maintain its dominance while alleviating regulatory pressures.
But the biggest thing Meta might hope to achieve is fragmentation and consolidation of the Fediverse. If Meta establishes its dominance within the federation, it may exert control and influence in a way that undermines the original vision of a decentralized and open network. This consolidation of power could hinder the potential benefits of federation, such as increased user choice and data control.
On this last point, defederation might prove to help Meta rather than hinder it since defederation creates the conditions for more fragmentation.
Defederation within the Fediverse leads to fragmentation, inadvertently creating conditions that contribute to Meta’s dominance in the social media landscape. As platforms disconnect and sever their connections, the loss of interoperability and weakened network effects diminish the overall appeal and competitive strength of the Fediverse.
This fragmentation allows Meta, with its vast user base and resources, to emerge as a central hub of connectivity, attracting users seeking a more cohesive experience. The limitations in content distribution and discoverability further solidify Meta’s dominance, as it leverages its centralized network to offer a comprehensive and accessible content experience. Efforts to maintain a connected and cohesive federated network are essential to safeguard the principles of decentralization and prevent fragmentation from undermining the potential of the Fediverse as a viable alternative to Meta’s dominance.
The more the Fediverse fragments, the more Meta is likely to dominate it and consolidate its power.
However, as much as some people might want complete defederation of Meta – demanding not just defederation of Meta, but also defederation of all servers that federate with Meta – I believe that’s a losing battle. To a degree, there might be fragmentation of the Fediverse. But it’s unlikely we will see a multitude of competing Fediverses that are all powered by ActivityPub.
To enforce total defederation will require whitelisting, and policing of that whitelist. Who will decide which server is on that whitelist? It would need to be a central entity. And the moment you have a central entity deciding who is on the whitelist is the moment that version of the Fediverse centralizes.
This defeats the purpose of the Fediverse – which is decentralization.
So what can be done to actually deal with Meta’s threat? I have some ideas on how to use federation to fight Meta.
So after wading into the debate yesterday based on an article written by @ploum (and posted by @dangillmor), and the larger #fedipact controversy, I decided to share a slightly more coherent version of my thoughts. I still think unnecessary #gatekeeping and preemptive #bans suck and will cause a helluva lot more damage to the protocol than Meta likely will, but as always, hope others who differ in their thoughts will engage in some healthy debate, and not just resort to calling me a troll for having a different opinion than them.
@onepict@privacat@ploum@nebulos Actually it is more or less just politics. Tech is merely a tool to create change. Politics are ideologies expressed publicly.
@onepict@privacat@ploum Great post! Yeah, I personally think people should choose what’s best for them.
I run 5 solo instances (well, 3 actually as the other two are blogs), & I do not intend to block #Threads (or whatever #Meta or #Instagram calls it) when it launches.
I am wondering is if people will end up blocking instances who do not block Threads. I think that is what people in the #Fediverse are worried about right now.
@TheGreatLlama@liaizon yeah I think people don’t realize how much US elections ads they’re gonna get with #threads and how horrible that’s gonna make #fedi
#ActivityPub, which is like the "language" that makes the #Fediverse work, doesn't have special rules to keep things private. It's more focused on helping different parts of the Fediverse talk to each other. ActivityPub doesn't have special rules to keep your messages private, so we need to be careful about what we share and who can hear us.
Imagine you have a sandcastle on the beach, and you want to keep it just for yourself and your friends. But sometimes, there are sneaky seagulls that come along and try to take your sandcastle when you're not looking. Even if you build a strong wall around your sandcastle (like ActivityPub), these sneaky seagulls (called scrapers) can still fly over the wall and take your sandcastle away. So, it's important to be careful with what you share, even if there are walls to protect your things.
And defederation doesn’t necessarily make your posts private either. You might think because you built another wall for your sandcastle that it will be safe. But sneaky seagulls can still fly over to your wall and see your sandcastle, even if you’ve created a barrier to entry (defederation) that you believe keeps them away.
So, just building a wall doesn't always keep your sandcastle (or your privacy) completely safe from the seagulls (or people who want to see your things). They have wings. They can fly over it.
Now, there's a seagull called Meta, and it's flying around, watching everything that's happening on the beach. Meta is like a company that wants to know what people are doing and talking about.
Now, when you're building your sandcastle, you can invite your friends to play with you. You all have a special way of talking to each other, using shells and rocks. This is like the Fediverse, a big group of people using different social media platforms that can talk to each other.
But here's the tricky part. Meta, the seagull, has created its own special sandcastle. It looks just like your sandcastle, but it's actually different. It has little hidden cameras inside it, so when people play near that sandcastle, Meta can watch and listen to everything they do. Meta's sandcastle represents their ActivityPub-enabled #Threads server, which is a technology they may use to track people's activities.
Now, you might think you can keep your sandcastle private by not playing near Meta's sandcastle. So you and your friends decide to go to a different part of the beach, far away from Meta. But here's the thing: Meta's seagull eyes can still see you, no matter where you go on the beach. It can fly up high in the sky and look down at everything happening on the beach, even if you're not near Meta's sandcastle anymore.
Similarly, Meta can still track your activities on the Fediverse, even if you decide to defederate from Meta's ActivityPub-enabled servers. They have other ways to collect information, just like the seagull can fly around and watch from a distance.
So, even if you try to protect your privacy by avoiding Meta's sandcastle, they can still see what you're doing because they have other methods of tracking you. That's why it's important to be aware of how your information is being collected and shared, and to make informed choices about what you share on the Fediverse.
@ebinger@ueckueck@stux@w4ts0n@w4tsn
Bitte hört auf, eine irgendwie geartete Kooperation mit Meta auch nur im Entferntesten in Erwägung zu ziehen. Vielen Dank.
I want this #Threads app asap and it bums me out SO BAD that Masto folks have already decided to hate it and ban it. Sure hope cooler heads prevail when launch comes
I'm very excited to see what happens to #BlueSky (and the apparent presumption that it'll immediately replace #Twitter when it leaves invite-only beta) once Meta's Twitter rival, #Threads, finally launches worldwide.
BlueSky currently has around 100k users and 2m on the waitlist—but Threads will receive the full weight of #Instagram's promotion to >1.2bn monthly active users.
On paper at least, pretty much theirs for the taking if they play it right.
After seeing here earlier that #P92 / #Threads had soft launched in some markets on Google Play, I to check on data.ai, the app release rankings platform, where. It couldn't tell me where it was live (nowhere now?), but, weirdly, it did tell me Threads had been registered as an upcoming app back in 2019(!).
I still haven't made up my mind about blocking Meta's #Threads, codenamed #Project92 or #P92, supposedly supporting #ActivityPub, should it actually launch. As far as I can see, it's basically "keeping the evil surveillance corp. out" vs "avoiding nerdy self-marginalization".
Both are fair points. I guess, it depends. But on what? For the, the key point is if the Threads (or whatever its name) support easy migration (as Mastodon does). If that's the case, I would prefer not to block it, as it could be an offramp from the walled garden. If this feature is omitted, then i would be much more open to blocking.
But in the end, this should not be a decision by the admins, but a collective one by the users of the instance. #fedipact#Project92
If #Meta wanted to mine your content to populate #Threads but didn’t want to federate their own content to the #Fediverse, they wouldn’t use ActivityPub for this purpose.
They would use RSS—which is enabled by default on most Mastodon servers.
In many ways, it would probably be easier for Meta to do this too.
So I just read that #Bluesky has added just 5k accounts (!!) in the past day, but because a lot of existing people are posting it's causing performance issues.
To me it also looks like amateur hour, if they can't open up their registrations and get it working, Meta's #Threads will certainly deliver.
Not that I would ever post to Threads, but regular folks moving from Twitter probably don't care if it's Meta's or Elon's network... as long as it works!
The Verge: Meta’s Twitter competitor, Threads, briefly showed up on Google Play (www.theverge.com)
Meta has not announced an official release date for the app, but it showing up on the Google Play store likely means a release is imminent.