Interesting new details have emerged concerning planned machinations for Meta's takeover of the fediverse. The information was revealed at a "data dialogue" in San Francisco on the subject of "Meta’s Threads Interoperating in the Fediverse".
It seems that the plan is to gradually roll federation out in stages over the next year. The most telling reveal is in the screenshotted toot by Meta advocate Evan:
"Also, as far as I could tell, the most important use case for them is that a creator could move from Threads to their own server, even if they get de-platformed. I think the major motivator here is Mark Zuckerberg having to go testify in front of Congress twice a year or whatever, and getting grilled by conservative Congresspeople about de-platforming. Being able to say, you can get kicked off Threads but keep your followers, is a big win in this situation."
If correct, the impression here is that Meta is interested in ActivityPub's account portability, so they can offload problematic fascists to the fediverse without too much disgruntlement. They see the fedi as a dumping ground into which they can externalize toxic users without having to either moderate them on their own server, or provoke them by wiping out their social graph.
In Zuckerberg's scheme, our community is to become a landfill for fascism.
@ophiocephalic starting by adding fedi read-only is also a naked cooptation, making us more fuel for the ad machine without building any community or giving much back.
@ophiocephalic Wait, don't we want instances that we federate with to remove users that don't follow their content guidelines?
I see no problem with Threads imposing their own content policy on their users, and still being able to see/reach/reply between myself and a Threads user, that may see "the Fediverse" as too difficult initially.
That said, if an instance admin really thinks they are protecting their user by blocking Threads, I encourage that, too. I can probably migrate, if needed.
@BoydStephenSmithJr
Zuckerberg's gambit is a way to evade accountability by externalizing the moderation of problematic users. The fediverse will pay the price. I do see a problem
@ophiocephalic Again, don't we want instances to kick off users that won't follow their content policies? Why is Threads doing that a bad thing, but mastodon.social doing that a good thing?
@BoydStephenSmithJr
Because Meta will send them off with a file containing their social graph. Those toxic fascists will then seek out a new perch with a compatible import function so their followers can continue to follow them. That means fediverse instances
@ophiocephalic I'm regularly told to export and back up my social graph so that I can restore it if my instance suddenly dies, or I disagree with the admins to such an extent that the protocol migration tools don't work because my admins have disabled them.
It actually sounds easier for me to keep my social graph when migrating from mastodon.social than from Threads.
What do you want Threads (or mastodon.social) to do with toxic fascists (or other non-compliant users)?
@BoydStephenSmithJr
It's not a bad thing for Threads to remove bad users. It's a bad thing for Threads to remove bad users by giving them an incentive to migrate to a fediverse instance, which they wouldn't otherwise have without account portability
@ophiocephalic Does your instance not provide migration methods? I can export/import follower lists from mine. Why is it a good thing for our instances to provide account portability, but "a bad thing" for Threads to let me move from or to their service easily?
I'm all about being wary of Threads. But, account portability and independent user moderation were always sold to me as advantages of many instances using a single protocol.
@BoydStephenSmithJr
Threads currently doesn't have fediverse account portability. If they kick off a fascist, he has no reason to come to the fedi - his followers aren't here. If Threads adopts fediverse account portability and gives booted users their fedi-compatible social graph, the kicked off fascist will now be incentivized to migrate to a fediverse instance where his followers can continue following him. They are externalizing moderation responsibility to us
@ophiocephalic Is that not what every instance you are federated with can do? Why is it a good thing for all the other Fediverse instances, but a bad thing for Threads when they participate in the Fediverse?
Under what conditions is it "a bad thing" for an ActivityPub instance to provide account portability? Under what conditions is it "a bad thing" for an ActivityPub instance to remove users that violate their policies?
I think we reached an impasse. This post seem too similar to earlier..
@BoydStephenSmithJr
Threads isn't a fediverse instance. It's a for-profit corporate network with 100 million users, crawling with nazis, transphobes, antisemites, stochastic terrorists and lots of other toxic slime. I agree that I have described the problem clearly and repeatedly, and will not do so again. Take care
@ophiocephalic I think this may be the crux of our disagreement. I would consider Threads a fediverse instance since it uses the ActivityPub protocol to federate (possibly transitively) with mstdn.social or mastodon.social (where "FediTips" lives).
How do you define "fediverse instance" / why is Threads not a fediverse instance / what does a fediverse instance have to do other than use ActivityPub and federate with one of the primary/"root" instances?
"I would consider Threads a fediverse instance since it uses the ActivityPub protocol to federate "
Think you're misunderstanding the words "instance" and "uses"
Threads does not "use" #Activitypub in the sense that its code is built around or written to the specification of Activitypub as #Mastodon is
Threads is being altered to interoperate with Mastodon -- and this is not merely a semantic distinction
Read this:
"Our goal with Threads is to make social content as interoperable as email. We are working on the ability for Threads to integrate with ActivityPub, the open, decentralized social networking protocol"
"to integrate with"
Not to be built with, or on top of
See: "Engineering at Meta, Threads: The inside story of Meta’s newest social app"
@FinchHaven@ophiocephalic I think you are using a very non-standard and needlessly restricted meaning for "use". I would say that MS Exchange uses SMTP to send email (to my exim, e.g.). Exchange isn't "built around" sendmail nor do all parts of it "follow the specifications/RFCs" like postfix does. Still Exchange is an email server, because it uses SMTP and can transfer email to/from other domains with it.
@FinchHaven@ophiocephalic Please define fediverse for me. I've provided my understanding of fediverse: The network of all ActivityPub (a protocol) servers ("instances") that federate (possibly indirectly) with mastodon.social.
Please try without using a non-standard meaning for "use" or other common English words. At least, please let me know when I'm using a non-standard definition.
I'm trying to follow your logic, but I find it a bit circular right now, and I'm looking for a foundation.
I think you are making a distinction between 'technically accurate' vs. 'conceptually adequate'. Conceptually there are many different ways to describe.
Your description tells how Fediverse is perceived now. But both servers and apps are not 1st-class citizens in the conceptual architecture.
"Activity exchange between actors in a distributed social network" may also do.
(And turn first two words to "Message exchange" to be protocol independent.)
@smallcircles@FinchHaven@ophiocephalic I'm honestly fine with a less technical and more conceptual definition of the Fediverse. I'm just wanting to agree on a definition so that we aren't talking past one another.
@ophiocephalic That’s fair that there might be a moderation burden.
But that’s true no matter how the fediverse gets huge. Be it with Threads instigating, or Mastodon just becoming the hot place to be.
But it’s fair to say there may be a moderation burden. I suspect there would be instances that would attract these people, so defederation would be super effective.
I think framing spaces as landfills is a bit hyperbolic though.
@owlboy
I think assuming the worst about how the people who run that entity think is entirely rational. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, the techbro racket is externalization. Externalize all the negatives out into society, keep the profit. If Evan's impression is right, it means they're looking for a way to externalize the responsibilities and liabilities of moderating problematic users; and that they see the fedi as a convenient depository of that externalization. Yes, you're right, we still have all the tools. But it certainly won't get easier
@ophiocephalic genuinely asking: assuming everything you said does happen, wouldnt those problematic individuals just go to instances that are already widely defederated from, or create new instances that would then become widely defederated from? as being able to do this is one of the core ideas/appeals of the fediverse.
@oldmanspidey
Look at it this way: Whatever happens, this is a gambit to externalize moderation responsibility and liability. That's the business techbros are in, externalization of all negatives out into society, leaving only profit for them.
Whatever happens, it will be bad for the fedi. Instance admins could be overwhelmed with a constant influx of toxic actors. Even a tiny sliver of the fascists on Meta's servers would make a huge wave to this network, and its many small servers. And this on top of the problems and technical stresses of federating with an algorithmically-moderated instance of 100 million. How could any of this be anything but disastrous
@ophiocephalic So the Fediverse was created to enable exactly what Meta is doing, but now we're going to get mad about it? I am not understanding the logic in all this angst.
This reminds me of when AOL started more fully embracing internet interoperability, and there was a lot of pearl-clutching and reactionism.
I welcome a popular new entrant to the open Fediverse, even though I’m not a fan of Facebook as an organization.
@tomwinzig
The fediverse was created to enable decentralized, community-owned and operated social media free of the profit motive. A Zuckerberg takeover will result in a centralized for-profit network controlled by Zuckerberg. Those two things are not in fact the same
@ophiocephalic If what you're saying is true — that a popular node on the Fediverse can centralize and control it — it speaks very poorly of the Fediverse design.
Last I checked, stevecase@aol.com didn't end up centralizing and controlling the web, either.
I look forward to being able to follow and interact with organizations and others that are starting out on Threads, just like I enjoyed being able to email and interact with my uncles and aunts from AOL in the old days…
@tomwinzig
The problem has nothing to do with fediverse design, it has to do with the greed and lack of social consciousness and imagination which is endemic to terminal-phase capitalism
@ophiocephalic interesting findings. This hope for portability and aspirations for "offloading of fascists" is going to bring quite some turmoil and need for cooperation in the Fedi to isolate them to keep this place an enjoyable experience...
@ophiocephalic mmm yes but Fedipact would be about isolating threads, if any of the unenjoyable accounts would move to another server in the Fediverse (and use portability on their social graph), they'll breach that containment that would make Fedipact workable...
@eilah_tan
You're right assuming the stated intentions of the FediPact at its launch. I am of the opinion that it could also be considered as the basis for broader ambitions, starting with a block on any servers which federate with Meta as well as Meta itself. I could go on from there, but you have a good point. If this is what's happening, we could see a flood of fascists armed with a csv of their social graphs looking for a new home with compatible import functionality. A real schism - between a Free Fediverse and a Facebook Fediverse - might be able to address that technically?
@ophiocephalic personally not a big fan of such a schism. A "free Fediverse" that would block meta to a 2nd degree would be alienating a lot of people in the middle that are neither for or against federating with Threads and just like connecting with folks regardless of server politics. I can't imagine the pole that isolates from meta to have a lot of diversity of thought that way.
But just my two cents
@eilah_tan
Those are all concerns. I find the prospect preferable to a Zuckerberg takeover and the kind of scenario we've been discussing, and I also think a fediverse that managed to peel off its growth-and-monetization techbro faction could comprise a much more creative and collectivistic scope of possibilities for social media beyond the profit motive. I would also be happy to see Meta go away and for the fedi as it currently exists to remain intact, but that appears to be a receding hope
@mastodonmigration
While I agree that it's good to not assume the honesty of anything they say, my worry is that this kind of thinking will result in a lowering of the guard. In fact, all the signs point to it happening. I wrote on this not too long ago, and the latest details all suggest it's full steam ahead. I would love to be wrong about this
Definitely appreciate your attention to the issue, and for educating people that what may come under the rubric of "fediverse integration" will probably not be the full bidirectional connection that people are assuming.
@mastodonmigration@ophiocephalic kind of like what blue sky is doing. They see that decentralization and Federation are desirable but actually doing so is antithetical to their business model so they cause play it to try to fool people who don't know any better
Add comment