@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
No, Mark Zuckerberg won't meet you in the lobby Chris Trottier.
Recently one of the fediverse's most ardent proponents of collaboration with Meta produced a long thread in which he details his argument for embracing the P92 gambit with open arms. This post is a response.
If you're wondering why he is not tagged or addressed directly in his thread, that's because Chris is want to block anyone who offers up even the most polite of substantive counterpoints. We'll just toodle along over here thanks. The intent is not actually to debate him, but to provide food for thought to those who might have been persuaded by his relentless advocacy to federate.
Trottier seems to believe that ActivityPub possesses extraordinary powers: "ActivityPub means that whatever of Meta’s userbase that’s exposed to federation will diversify into other platforms […] This diversification reduces the dependence of users on a single platform, giving them more choices and potentially drawing them away from Meta."
But he never acknowledges that Meta platforms comprise an algorithmically-governed censorship regime which repress information of many kinds - for example, the #joinpixelfed hashtag, which was banned on Instagram along with the Pixelfed account itself. Why would this entity allow pied pipers of the fediverse to frolic freely on P92 and evangelize escape from its enclosure?
For that matter, why does he think that would work at all? The userbase of Instagram will be prompted to join Threads. That means something of the existing network effect of that longstanding service will be transplanted in; and rest assured, there will be no account migration functionality provided.
In fact, the number of teen-dream travel-snap influencers who will, upon exposure to a single post by Chris Trottier on the magic of W3C protocol development, leap to wrench themselves away from the highly addictive and even financially-incentivized dependency on their established social graph and plunge themselves into the X11-Wayland religious war waged among the beloved catgirls of the fediverse is statistically very close to zero.
There is also an unsettling absence of agency in Chris's characterization of the lost souls of Meta, as if they're just sheep waiting for the good shepherds of decentralization to lead them to greener pastures. Instagram account holders are free to sign up for a fediverse account right now, and many have already done so - and by the way, the reverse flow is also quite possible for anyone here who wishes to connect to friends and family on Meta networks.
To open this "revelatory" "Pandora's Box" (his words) of the ActivityPub Rapture, Trottier proposes, with great bloviation, something called "lobby servers". As he describes: "Lobby servers can bridge communities. They act as intermediaries that connect different social media platforms, including Meta-owned ones, with non-Meta platforms. […] By federating with Meta, lobby servers can pull content from Meta’s network and redistribute it to other federated platforms. This syndication allows users on non-Meta platforms to access and engage with Meta users’ content, thereby exposing them to different perspectives and encouraging cross-platform interactions…"
The flowery language continues on, but he is not actually proposing some novel new technical development. There is nothing described which is not already part and parcel of ActivityPub federation. The "lobby server" is simply a rebrand of "an instance federating with Meta".
This Hotel California doublespeak is indicative of the most problematic aspects of the communications of pro-Meta luminaries. In a ploy more typical of the contemporary reactionary right, the values and intentions of the opposing fediverse opinions on Meta are inverted. Trottier's post begins: "Federation with Meta actually hurts Meta."
He continues, referencing the FediPact community: "… 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." So, in this new upside-down reality, the anticapitalists trying to save at least part of the fediverse from colonization by one of the most destructive corporations in the world "don't want to fight Meta"; the true revolutionaries are those eager to collaborate with that corporation.
The Orwellian trolling degenerates from there. He claims that turning away from P92 - a single vertical silo which may comprise tens or even hundreds of millions of users - will paradoxically harm decentralization, because all those little servers federated with each other somehow result in "fragmentation" instead. And the anarchists and marginalized communities in the FediPact? They're actually pro-police authoritarians! "To enforce total defederation will require whitelisting, and policing of that whitelist." The term "whitelist" is repeated over and over in this paragraph, which is a subtle dig in the direction of a general and very nasty propensity among pro-Zuck advocates to associate the FediPact with the "HOA" and the absence of diversity.
On the whole, the most visible proponents for Meta collaboration have been big-instance admins who have done neither themselves or their cause any good over the last couple of weeks. Chris Trottier is something of an exception. We have repeatedly noted people explaining that they were on the fence over the Meta issue, until convinced by Trottier's arguments. He may fancy himself as fighting Meta, but by relentlessly arguing in favor of federating with them, he is actually serving as their most useful and effective asset in the fediverse.
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(!).
⚠️ Hey #MastoAdmin FYI there is a Mastodon security update apparently coming 6 July.
EDIT: Interestingly, the same day #Facebook#Threads launches. Hmm... 🤔
The reason you probably didn't know about it, is because it was only announced* behind a proprietary centralized paywalled garden. (Not Twitter, but the same effect.)
Be ready.
This is not a recommended way to run an #OpenSource community.
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!
Ever since #Twitter started charging for API access, bots have been scraping the site. #ElonMusk is fighting a never ending battle now, but ultimately this will kill off advertising revenue as it will limit reach—unless it’s so low that it does not matter.
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
@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
@ebinger@ueckueck@stux@w4ts0n@w4tsn
Bitte hört auf, eine irgendwie geartete Kooperation mit Meta auch nur im Entferntesten in Erwägung zu ziehen. Vielen Dank.
A detailed look at the timeline behind Meta's interactions with the Fediverse, how different parts of the network have reacted, and some insights on where things might be going.
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.
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 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.
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.
Making Sense of the Argument Around Meta (wedistribute.org)
A detailed look at the timeline behind Meta's interactions with the Fediverse, how different parts of the network have reacted, and some insights on where things might be going.