@rolle I am part of the generation that knew Jabber, that was happy to see Google embrace the Jabber/XMPP protocol: anyone with a gmail address had an XMPP instant messaging account interoperable with all other servers.
And one day gmail closed to other servers. Most users, already on Google, then asked others to create a gmail account to continue communicating.
I don't want to go through that again. "Embrace, extend, and extinguish", again.
@rolle What kind of question is this. Are there people that straight up hate all Facebook users. That's just stupid. I get not liking Facebook, but don't block users because of that.
@laukanhenkka@rolle "You could follow users from that world" sounds like you wouldn't JUST because they are on a Facebook instance. That's stupid. There was an option in the poll to block them outright, which is even more stupid. Let's not create drama before anything has actually happened.
@thomy2000 I'm not sure why you think that Rolle is trying to create drama.
I probably wouldn't follow people if they're on a Meta server. I want to keep my social media mine and if there's a chance that my data would be misshandled I wouldn't take that chance. That still doesn't mean I would block them. I just wouldn't care to follow people that don't know better.
I think it's within everybodys right to follow who ever they want based on what ever criteria they want.
@thomy2000 And considering the "before anything has actually happened" part, I think it's fair to say that a commercially operated company will want to monetize the data they collect. It's just common sense to think about these things preemptively.
I mean, look at Twitter. Their recent corporate decisions about monetizement and sensorship are the reason Mastodon has grown so dramatically over the last few months. And that is a good thing.
@laukanhenkka@thomy2000@rolle Making a profit is not a sin, though. So if a Facebook-operated ActivityPub instance comes along and is fully compatible with the Fediverse, the fact that it's a for-profit instance wouldn't be what stopped me from following people on it, or made me block it.
I'd make those decisions based on exactly the same criteria was I would any other person or instance. If I find the person useful or entertaining in some way, I'd follow them. If an entire instance proved itself to be hugely problematic, I might block them. It makes no difference to me that the instance is for-profit.
@GrahamDowns Sure, that's within your right. And that's the thing: People can and should do what ever they want within their own social bubble and shouldn't be called stupid for doing what they do. As @thomy2000 so eloquently put it.
I wouldn't outright block them either. Depends entirely how they handle my data. Remains to be seen.
@GrahamDowns And as a side note, I don't think it's that far fetched to fear that social media giants like Meta will eventually try to swoop in and destroy the beautiful openness that is ActivityPub.
It's definitely a legit fear to have, and also quite ok to try and prevent it.
@GrahamDowns@rolle@thomy2000@laukanhenkka The is is not profit in itself, but rather in HOW the profit is made & how it is used. Meta is both unethical and criminal. They have been caught violating their own privacy policy & the GDPR in copious abuses & scandals like selling ppl’s faces w/out consent. Helping them profit is effectively contributing to their nefarious activity.
@FlashMobOfOne@rolle Choice is good, and your choice to be clear of all that noise is essential. I would like to see such choices deployed at a user rather than server level though. Bringing Meta’s users into contact with the fediverse could be a powerful way to open their up to other platforms and more respectful ways of being online.
Most of the users aren’t doing anything for Zuck’s agenda, they’re just wanting to connect with people and don’t know the other options
@FlashMobOfOne@rolle I’ve been around the web and its culture long enough to know nothing truly lasts. We’re seeing a drift back to the ideals and infrastructure of the mid-late 90s web, which is remarkable.
Increasingly folk are aware Web 2.0 turned into a crock & would be open to something different. Locking the doors on them helps Facebook maintain their hold. Open them with welcoming arms & we kill the opportunity cost of stepping away from Zuckspace. I believe that serves all our ideals.
@FlashMobOfOne@rolle yet many thousands have come to the fediverse from those other major social platforms. Let’s give out fellow netizens a little more credit for their abilities. People try it out and often find something appealing. I’d also say that very kindness you speak of (which, to be honest, I have absolutely seen wavering around fedi recently which is crushing and I hope comes back ) is exactly why we should have open borders to extend that kindness.
@rolle I am as opposed to Facebook as the next... everybody, but I don't quite get this. If the aim is for all platforms to be based on open standards (so ActivityPub) and interoperable, then blocking any big one that wants to join in runs counter to that.
I am aware of "embrace extend extinguish" before someone replies with that, I just think it is incoherent to be opposed to "walled gardens" and then say that our open standard is also a walled garden, actually.
@tomw@rolle my goal with joining the fediverse was never to segregate from others. It was to control my own experience. I can still do that even if Facebook people join the conversation.
I might get even more involved in moderation efforts than I am today, but I probably won’t fediblock.
@ophiocephalic
Most troubling and disappointing to me is that at least one of the ActivityPub folks is excited about this and actively wants to help out
@smallpatatas@rolle
Honestly, I'm fine with a schism. We no longer enjoy the luxury of worrying about numbers or "reach". The radical bloc can split off, save part of the community and defederate with every instance that has no problem being assimilated by the borg
@smallpatatas@ophiocephalic@rolle I find this outreach encouraging, not disappointing. @evan is an internet standards veteran who no doubt understands the capture dynamics of EEE very well. With his message he is effectively putting polite pressure on Meta to take a seat at the community table and talk through risks and alignments.
If you’re concerned with someone’s actions, mention them and engage in good-faith discourse for collective sense-making. That’s what this networking tool is for.
Interestingly the majority (57%) voted "No" or "Fuck No"
I don't think Facebook or any other corporate actor can be trusted nor do I think it's possible for them to interact nicely in any way without vacuuming all the data they can get.
I feel strongly that people using my server are competent enough to decide for themselves if they want to block Meta or not. Everyone can block servers. I won't force my personal agenda on other people.
Blocking is serious. I block servers created for the purpose of hurting people and doing harm. I block to protect, not to punish.
Depending on what the messages end up looking like, I may just limit (silence) Facebook and Instagram, but I see no reason at this time to expect to block them.
@admin
Meta colluded w/Peter Thiel & Cambridge Analytica to misinform voters & tamper w/US elections to get #Trump into power. Blocking that harmful force is a protection, not a punishment.
Note as well that the #GDPR is not well enforced. We cannot rely on the GDPR for data protection. Preventing data abusers from getting more data to use for harm is a necessary protection. @rolle
@zleap@rolle@admin There is an art.77 right to report GDPR violations to the DPA of the relevant member state. But THAT is what’s unenforced. DPAs are rejecting & mothballing cases despite strong evidence. There is nothing in the #GDPR giving recourse to art.77 non-compliance by a DPA… no escallation procedure. You can sue but an Austrian court decided you don’t get legal costs even if you win.
@zleap@admin@rolle Pretty much. I’m not sure what the odds are that a case gets accepted & worked on. I’ve filed several reports yrs ago & got zero results. Some cases get enforced & it’s published here: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ perhaps to maintain the façade that the GDPR is successful. The #GDPR seems to just be a tool to make ppl less resistant to the #digitalTransformation.
@webhat@rolle@admin Also consider that #Facebook is keeping track of who is gay. Even if an FB pawn does not overtly state it, FB figures it out & keeps that on file. IIRC, there are still 7 countries w/extreme penalties for homosexuality. The data can be leaked, sold, or stolen. Or law enforcement could ask FB to advertise to gays in their country a fake shop to bait them.
@koherecoWatchdog@rolle@admin we know "law enforcement" is indiscriminately trawling FB sucking in data and images to add to their databases and using the data they gather to identify "deviant behaviour". I've often wondered what's going to stop them from going further using the data that FB infers, like sexuality.
@webhat@admin@rolle Perhaps a bigger threat in the jurisdiction that has the easiest access to FB data would be abortion data now that Roe v. Wade was overturned. FB markets abortion pills as well as baby products after a successful birth, so FB tries to track who is pregnant, who delivered, & who aborted, IIRC.
@koherecoWatchdog@admin@rolle
I don't really get the argument here. What a platform does to its users is independent to how it behaves externally, no?
Blocking Facebook doesn't mean anything with regards to data, since if they wanted to, they can get it anyway. The only thing that blocking achieves is that Facebook users are less likely to migrate away - which in my book is bad.
Only if Facebook decides to publish ads via ActivityPub I could see your point. But I doubt they would do that, and even then you could just silence them for the public timeline.
@sigmasternchen@admin@rolle The election tampering has multiple components to it. There is the data collection+sale then there are the bots that carry out the manipulation. The malicious bots are not easily distinguishable from humans. The data harvesting is also fed not b/c of extra visibility on the fedi but b/c the extra accessbility to pawns increases the human-generated data that’s in Meta’s purview.
@rolle@admin@sigmasternchen Meta has a history of tracking non-users. That is, even though i have never created a #Facebook acct, FB built a profile on me from FB pawns who naïvely invited me to the platform, along w/anything else Meta can collect on non-users. Federating w/ #Meta also grants a certain amount of implied consent to use & abuse the data. Defederating likely avoids that implied consent.
@koherecoWatchdog@rolle@admin If Facebook doesn't care about consent they can just build a non-descriptive instance (that doesn't look like Facebook) that federates with everyone and collects all the data anyway.
So how is it worse if Facebook itself federates?
@sigmasternchen@admin@rolle It’s a bad idea to give FB consent on the basis that they operate w/out consent anyway because you through away your legal standing. It’s not just a technical problem, it’s a legal one, and FB might have to explain GDPR violations in court. The more of their activity that’s non-consentual, the better. The more work on their defense team.
@rolle@admin@sigmasternchen As well, if FB stands up a stealthy fedi instance, it breaks their data aggregation. That is, FB pawns are still on FB not on the compromized node. So then they have a small community of less identifiable users than their own pawns. That’s not too interesting for them.
@koherecoWatchdog@rolle@admin So your argument is, Facebook only cares about the connections between its users and remote users? Okay, fair, that might be.
@sigmasternchen@admin@rolle That’s where FB’s focus would be because they know their own pawns inside out. But then they can use that knowledge to work out the identity of outsiders talking to FB pawns, and then expand their abuse from that extra relationship data.
@koherecoWatchdog@admin@rolle I don't think that works. Example:
Facebook doesn't know me - importantly it does not know my social network. So it can not compare it with any known networks on Facebook, and therefor doesn't have any way of determining my identity.
This only works if a Facebook user migrated their account away from Facebook. But even then they already have their data, and as states previously: Users migrating from Facebook into the fediverse is actually good, I think.
@sigmasternchen@admin@rolle FB probably does know you. You just don’t know that FB knows you. Every website that has a like button tracks that you were there even if you don’t click the like button. You have to be extra defensive well beyond the mainstream to avoid that in itself (e.g. using tor browser would put you in a negligable minority), and you would also have to not have had FB pawns inviting you.
@koherecoWatchdog@admin@rolle Even if I wouldn't be using a tracking-blocker, my fedi instance doesn't track me. Facebook would need a lot more data to determine my identity from my fedi account. Not even my email address would help them. Even with my name it would be difficult.
@rolle@admin@sigmasternchen To a limited extent you can control what info you disclose to FB as an outsider by using Tor, unique per-purpose email addys, etc, but one thing that’s mostly outside of your control are the naïve pawns who will fall for any trick to get them to reveal info about outsider friends. When someone takes a group photo, I don’t allow that anymore b/c of FB’s uncontrolled facial rec
@sigmasternchen@admin@rolle FB wants to see who among their own well-known pawns interacts w/who in the fedi b/c that can help identify the otherwise pseudo-anonymous fedi user. Fedi to Fedi interaction is less interesting because the deanonymization effort loses economic viability when both sides of a conversation are using pseudonyms. They’d try to match the IPs of those on their fedi node to FB pawns.
@koherecoWatchdog@admin@rolle That only works, if Facebook already has an idea of the social network of a user - which I suspect is not the case for a lot of users. Also there are a lot of people using their real names here as well.
Not sure what you mean with IPs in that case, since Facebook doesn't control the nodes it would federate with.
@sigmasternchen@admin@rolle FB clearly does have an idea of the social network of their pawns. They even try to collect that on outsiders. Whenever an FB pawn invited, FB would say: “we think you also know these other users…” And that list of FB pawns would be spot-on accurate. Every single one of those people were people that I knew, & FB knew that I knew them.
@koherecoWatchdog@admin@rolle Yes but that only works for already established users. I create a new account and add people from my school, then of course Facebook will recognise the pattern and suggest more people from that school. But that doesn't work if they have no base network.
@sigmasternchen@admin@rolle I was not an FB pawn. I was never an FB pawn. FB figured out my network purely based on ~2 or 3 users inviting me to FB. From just a couple users inviting me, FB filled my screen with people i knew.
@koherecoWatchdog@admin@rolle But either way it's non-consensual. They just can not get consent from remote users, so it's a GDPR violation anyway.
You could argue that the GDPR violation lays at the instance federating with Facebook, since they forward your data. But then the whole idea of the fediverse is problematic from a data-protection standpoint.
@sigmasternchen@admin@rolle This would get into finger-pointing. FB would argue: they did not defederate, and since there is no node-to-node contracts, it’s all fair game to FB. The federated 3rd party would have to argue users inherently consent to that situation. So FB is the winner and the fedi users are the losers in that scenario where a fedi admin does not cut off FB.
Regarding the pawns: So you argue, that people on Facebook get manipulated by bots to spread the propaganda even further? But then the problem is the users. We should therefor not allow anyone with a Facebook account in the fediverse?
@sigmasternchen@admin@rolle It would /not/ be easy. The data collected on FB pawns is done in aggregate to such an extent that the users are trivially identifiable. They use their real names typically & likely have a mobile phone number linked. This is important for Cambridge Analytica ops. The cost of the effort of denonymizing fedi users would probably not be worth the payoff.
@rolle I am torn between yes and no. Yes because that's how I can stay in touch with family and friends that are in different countries or back home, also because that's the best way to find local things. No because fuck facebook and zuckerberg can zuck it. Tough call.
@rolle
I would absolutely not want them to have present my content and monetizing it by combining it with adverts.
No no no.
I would definitely block the instance.
@supernovae it’s not just trackers in their app. Any posts and images in their federated timeline, and any unlisted or followers-only posts and images from anybody followed by somebody on their instance, will also be tracked by them — snd used to target ads, put in their facial recognition databases, and train their AI models, etc. Surveillance capitalism FTW! @rolle
@supernovae
My point was just that it’s misleading to say #Meta will only be tracking people who use their app. Just like with Gab, with the #ActivityPub protocol and vanilla Mastodon’s implementation, being on a site that federates with them is likely to give them access to your data. @rolle
@supernovae@rolle Of course many don’t consider Meta as bad an actor as Gab, and there’s value in being able to follow people there, so there’s a trade off. We’ll see how things develop but my guess is that there will be a another split in the #fediverse between the “decentralized surveillance capitalism and friends” region and the “just say no to surveillance capitalism “ region
@jdp23@supernovae@rolle I don't really get that point, they already can collect all the public data you generate, that would not really be any different apart from the fact like you stated, they could now see follower-only posts, which should be considered public imo. If anything they are already tracking everything going on Mastodon and co
@mxmvncnt From a security perspective I agree that people should assume followers-only posts (and DMs) aren't private, but that's different from consensually giving the data to a company whose business model is exploiting the data people give them.
And it's not actually true that companies can do whatever they want with public data. Clearview AI's been fined and banned for scraping public images, companies have been successfully sued for scraping Facebook posts; etc. etc.
@mxmvncnt In general I certainly agree that the #Fediverse today as a whole isn't anywhere near as private as many people think it is. But for many people that's a different question then whether they want to actively participate in and assist #SurveillanceCapitalism business models.
@supernovae@mxmvncnt@rolle Right, one of the good things about the fediverse is that people and instances can make their own decisions. It'll be interesting to see what what will mastodon . social does. And it'll also be interesting to see how many instances decide they also need to block instances that federate with Meta.
Of course who knows what or when their initial implementation will be and how they'll evolve it but even now it's an interesting concrete thought experiment!
@jdp23 Tired of this argument "everyone can already get your data". It's a completely different game when a billion dollar data harvesting industry like Meta does it. @supernovae@mxmvncnt
I find your question so difficult.
If there were certain people that are important to me, I'd love to follow them, but on the other hand, I don't trust the Big-Tech-Firms at all.
If you'd asked: Would you like those Big-Tech-Firms to join the Fediverse, I could say: NO!
But would I be able to renounce those people if I could connect with them... I simply don't know. 🥴
The only way I would be comfortable is if I could follow but not be followed. That should be an available across the board option. Like, Meta, it's OK to serve your users up to Fedi lurkers, but you don't get reciprocity unless you fundamentally change your business model.
@rolle yes, I would. I definitely welcome the idea of interacting with more people. I was told the fediverse cannot possibly be taken over by any corporation. So, if that holds true, there won't be centralization in the hands of giant corporations.
@aristeon89@rolle That’s not exactly true. The #fedi is already about ~20—30% centralized by #Cloudflare, Inc. Booters are attacking fedi nodes. Most fedi admins are not ambitious enough to defend their server so they take the easy way out & centralize their node on Cloudflare. This is the biggest most notorious gatekeeper of the web. They control around 25—30% of all websites in the world.
@koherecoWatchdog@rolle that's a different issue, though. And I can't speak to that because I have no experience with it.
My perspective is that of a user. What I see is that many people don't seem interested in the fediverse being an alternative to Twitter. The very notion has been attacked.
I would rather focus on making the fediverse mainstream than trying to insulate it. The fediverse is losing momentum. But that's just my opinion.
@aristeon89
I think the #fedi is growing & would not be surprised if the growth was outpacing Twitter. We don’t need the tech giants to maintain momentum.
If we start putting quanity over quality, that would threaten our momentum. The fact that we’ve allowed Cloudflare nodes to persist so far has been a quality compromise we need to deal with. It’s antithetical to being federated & free from oppressors.
I recently noticed that Mike Galsworthy stopped posting here but is active on Twitter. Other people I follow have done the same. He was certainly invested in the fediverse concept, but it just didn't work out for him.
You cannot exclude FB or exclude any company or person. I don't want you to decide for me. That's not "freedom". Each instance should decide and people can have this discussion in each instance and move if they wish to do so.
Add comment