“i am an instance admin/mod on the fediverse. by signing this pact, i hereby agree to block any instances owned by meta should they pop up on the fediverse. project92 is a real and serious threat to the health and longevity of fedi and must be fought back against at every possible opportunity”
Meta won't federate anyone. They don't want to host illegal content on their servers, that would be an absolute PR disaster for them. And this is what will happen if they federate with a random instance. Even clean instances will want to play tricks on Meta if federated.
They are the prototype of the mono instance federation. They want control. They want to attract the people leaving Twitter. I don't think they care about us, what they want to avoid is that our instances become too big and start to offer an alternative.
@wrath@kbin.social Defederate with any instance Meta has infected - including any instance at Mastodon who thinks this is a good idea. I left FB years ago because of this and their boosting of the alt-right
Hopefully no credible Fediverse platform actually federates with their trojan horse. If we let Zuck, or anyone like him, become a major player in the ActivityPub world, pretty soon we're going to end up right back where we started.
Genuinely curious as I'm new to all of this, why would it matter? Isn't that the whole point of the fediverse? If their spyware app interfacing with it is what gets the casual users into it who already have Meta's spyware installed, you can still use the fediverse from whatever service you prefer, right?
what they could potentially do is to post Ads across the fediverse, and their sales-pitch could be something along the lines "hey look, for just 20 bucks a month, your AD can be shown on 1500 other domains and not only on FB.com"
A few others have commented below, but from a top level perspective I'd argue that taking a relatively small platform like the fediverse and smushing it with Facebooks user base would dilute the community / environment.
If meta federates with everyone, it'll be a huge uplift in quantity as new people start posting, but the quality I feel would be impacted.
I imagine it would be like pouring a small cup of liquid and a big container of liquid into the same bowl, one would definitely dilute the other.
I have no doubt their backend would eventually somehow be able to link you to other accounts and create shadow profiles of you just like they have with their other products.
It's more or less the same problem as XMPP (end-to-end encrypted, federated chat protocol) had with Google Talk.
All users went to Google and then Google broke interoperability with federated servers, leaving them dead/unable to communicate with the majority of users.
Later Google killed the project as they always do. XMPP is still around, but the userbase is very small.
The "fediverse" has been gaining traction recently, the fear is that Meta comes in with 1.2bn users, gets everyone on their service and the breaks federation, leaving the rest of the fediverse a drying carcass as they "move on".
Personally, I don't really care about the "popularity contest" - I'm not here because the community is large, I'm here because it isn't. Signal > Noise. So I'm all for defederation.
The TL;DR is "so it doesn't become XMPP" - if a big player from the corporate internet world achieves significant sway over the Fediverse, that gives them a position of power to steer the platform itself, eventually letting them undermine the whole "open-source" and "decentralised" part of it entirely before taking their chunk of the federation private, effectively kneecapping the remaining communities outside the walled garden.
If you've ever heard "the three Es" - Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, best known from the Microsoft antitrust days - that's what we're worried about happening here.
Honestly I think a lot of it is that the Fediverse (especially Mastodon) wants to remain a small community relatively isolated from regular social networks, and a very big instance would ruin that. It’s very similar to Usenet when AOL customers got access to it (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September).
Some people are worried about Meta having their data, but anything you post publicly in the Fediverse is, by definition, public. A whole heap of servers have your data, and even today some of the federated servers could be operated by large companies. How would you know? My Lemmy server is federating with over a thousand others… I don’t know who runs all of those or what they’re doing with the data…
I’m still trying to wrap my head around Fediverse concepts as well but the thing that stands out for me is that there is a history of private companies effectively killing open source projects.
For us, the vulnerability is ActivityPub. If Meta begins “contributing” to a foundational Fediverse technology, they have the resources to extend the protocol in a way that benefits Meta only, at a pace that only a company with the resources of Meta can.
Yep. Just like how we don't want any particular web browser core becoming the standard core as opposed to having a common web protocols that anyone can write a browser to use. We saw what a mess people writing for only Internet Explorer became, and even Microsoft felt the pains of that when they wanted to retire Internet Explorer. The legacy of that remains to this day when coming across under or non funded web sites created through contract funding or grant funding and then not updated.
I certainly can see the same things happening long term with a large corporate entity joining the Fediverse, initially 'contributing' some great feature, and then in the future having a large number of instances dependent on that feature and having the tables turned by the corporate entity saying "Oh, well, we're charging for this now." You know... kind of like what just happened with Reddit and third part readers.
So Google was really embracing the federation. How cool was that? It meant that, suddenly, every single Gmail user became an XMPP user. This could only be good for XMPP, right? I was ecstatic.
.
First of all, despites collaborating to develop the XMPP standard, Google was doing its own closed implementation that nobody could review. It turns out they were not always respecting the protocol they were developing.
Federation was sometimes broken: for hours or days, there would not be communications possible between Google and regular XMPP servers. The XMPP community became watchers and debuggers of Google’s servers, posting irregularities and downtime
And because there were far more Google talk users than "true XMPP" users, there was little room for "not caring about Google talk users"
.
In 2013, Google realised that most XMPP interactions were between Google Talk users anyway. They didn’t care about respecting a protocol they were not 100% in control. So they pulled the plug and announced they would not be federated anymore.
As expected, no Google user bated an eye. In fact, none of them realised. At worst, some of their contacts became offline. That was all. But for the XMPP federation, it was like the majority of users suddenly disappeared. Even XMPP die hard fanatics, like your servitor, had to create Google accounts to keep contact with friends. Remember: for them, we were simply offline. It was our fault.
I’m pretty sure they just requested every single permission. There’s no good reason they need access to your Health data to make an app like this, and why the hell did Apple’s app review allow that to fly?!
Companies like Facebook and Google don’t sell user data. This is a common misconception that people keep repeating. Logically it doesn’t make sense: The data is what makes the company valuable, so they’re not going to give that away! If they did, Facebook would just buy Google’s data (and vice versa) and neither would have a competitive advantage any more.
Instead, they let advertisers target people based on data. For example, an advertiser can specify that their ad should be visible to people aged 20-25 that like computers and live in Los Angeles. You can access Facebook and Google’s ad management products and run your own ads, and see exactly the same system and data that advertisers see.
No not really imo, because selling localised advertising instead of the data itself means the advertisers are just as chained to the big platforms as the users. That’s the whole reason these platforms stay alive, because they keep both parties ‘hostage’
You must be completely crazy to give away your medical information, because sooner or later someone is going to sell your data to an insurance company near you and your next contract will cost you a fortune. You will never know why, who or when, but your insurance company will know everything about your medical situation before making you an offer.
As much as it already frustrates me how much they surveil their own users, these two concern me personally. I guarantee meta will feel 100% entitled to not only their own users’ content, but that of federated posters as well. Without any kind of privacy guarantee as a federated contributor, I don’t think Meta should federated with just yet.
You’re right. Reviewing ownership of all instances might be a bit unreasonable.
How about we just focus on the ones that stand out for things such as mass surveillance, conducting social experiments on their users, taking over markets, buying out competition, and influence upon genocidal political movements?
You put it more eloquently than I could. @dan does bring up good points. We can’t monitor everything. But Meta is sort of a whale in a pond of goldfish. It stands out. And I personally don’t think should be given any benefit of the doubt based on their history.
Add comment