I've seen this article circulating and I think it's a really good cautionary tale. If meta arrives here in full force it's completely going to take over the fediverse, they are already splitting the community as it is.
Note that this is different subject from being anti-corporate. I don't think there's an issue if companies start booting their instances and creating communities for their games or content, whether its EA, Bioware, CDPR or something like pcgamer, LTT, gamersnexus, etc. They want the PR and visibility on a social network but their goal probably wouldn't be take over the AP, and could add some validity and get other bigger names to be active here. That is assuming we want growth at all.
Damn, this article's interesting. I never knew about either Google or Microsoft's actions on that matter. I suppose it's not very surprising anyway. "Don't be evil", LMAO
They can't do a hostile take over of ActivityPub. The trap is that they would come in with open arms and an army of developers. ActivityPub maintainers would at first welcome the help and guidance from such an experienced team. Then, once they have the community hooked, they spring the trap and start making changes that are actively hostile to small sites. The community flocks to the big site because everything works better there, and the dream is dead.
Now maybe it'll never happen, but it's hard to tell. Even if Facebook joined with the best intentions, that doesn't mean the project isn't going to be taken over by a power hungry manager later who could still activate the trap card.
this is the closest someone has come to convincing me that this would be a big problem. i still happen to think that the smaller instances will be fine in the long run. big consolidated instances are inevitable because people like being where people are. look at twitter and facebook. i suspect the worst problem we'd have is people switching from "facebook" to "federated facebook".
now maybe meta will be able to fuck with the standards body that is responsible for the standard. that would be very bad. then i'd be on board. until they do that, i won't worry. i'm open to having my mind changed, but i've found most arguments to be unconvincing as they basically boil down to "but they're big!"
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.
This is why the big threat is Meta, because they are a tech company. I think any instances spun up by Silicon Valley should be blocked preemptively, but other corpora can have a probationary period.
Honestly, it Meta spun up a Mastodon site to host Meta employees and just have a corporate presence, the way they might have a Twitter account, that wouldn't be an issue at all.
The issue is that they're arriving as platform developers, not social participants. And that's their business.
We should be super suspicious of people showing up to sell the Fediverse, because you can't profit off of community. Community costs money, not generates it. To generate money, you need to exploit people, and exploitation is anti-social. Anti-community.
I say they can, this is kind of what we have seen with Chrome tbh.
Google came in, made an awesome browser got market majority and started just implementing things to the point where its hard to keep up and the various specification bodies kind of just have to ratify things that is already in the browser or become obsolete, afaik this happened with components such as the in browser DRM which by design makes it hard to implement.
I think this can come true as long as we let them insert themselves into the ecosystem. The difference here is that we have the option to keep our part of the fediverse pristine by not federating with these servers, even if we doom ourselves to obscurity by doing it.
I was originally in the let’s just sit back and see what happens camp, but this article completely changed my perspective. A very interesting read. I do, however, agree that companies creating their own instances to advertise their products can only be good for us in the longrun.
On a similar note, I was recently reading about Microsoft’s efforts to dominate the whole browser space in the 90s, and I think it’s a very good example of the worst kind of capitalism.
It's really helpful to see a previous example of something like this happening. I was aware of many instances blocking the potential Meta instance but didn't really get the reason why. Now it makes sense.
@Kaldo Thank you for the link, that's exactly what prompted this thread!
I think it's just too hard to draw the line of "not rich enough to be a concern." Amazon instance is obviously bad. Pepsi? If they put their minds to it they could do something lol. Hasbro?? They're greedy enough for sure.
Or what if a company starts as a relatively minor player, but suddenly get big. Steam acquires the entire video game industry or something lmao. Then we still have the same problem, they're going to be motivated differently.
So I say we defederate all profit driven instances. They can still make magazines on our instances, if they can follow our rules. If they have trouble following our rules... Well, then I definitely don't want them in a position to affect the whole Fediverse lol.
I honestly think that social media services should exclusively be nonprofits and run off of a combination of very limited ads and/or donation drives à la Wikipedia. Profit motives destroy things like this, as we've seen time and time again.
I agree. I have been thinking the last few days how Kbin can sustainably keep the servers paid for long term. A non-profit, Wikipedia style arrangement is the only thing I keep coming back to that makes sense.
For now, I’m just paying for my instance out of my pocket because I wanna see this place grow. Maybe I will need donations to keep it going in the future once it reaches a certain size but I can’t imagine trying to ever profit off keeping this running. I think the real value in federated instances and content is going back to the ways of the early internet, the personal pet projects that motivate people. I’m also personally totally done with being advertised, scraped, and sold..I don’t want to ever do that to anyone else.
Wikipedia is a good example. It is annoying when they ask for the $3 every year, but it's true that a small contribution like that across the many users can keep a free/libre project sustained. Things like Usenet used to be part of your ISP bill anyhow, so a small monthly/annual amount to your instance host makes sense to me. Of course, we pay ridiculous amounts to our ISPs without services like this nowadays, so it does hurt a little
I made another comment about this previously and I really don't want to end up as the designated "don't donate to Wikipedia" user on the threadiverse, but here we are anyway. Before I continue, I will say I'm not personally involved and I'm not anti-Wikipedia/Wikimedia, but I do think the Wikimedia Foundation is misleading Wikipedia visitors about its funding, or at least that it has in previous donation drives.
It's worth mentioning that "Wikipedia" is itself never asking for money. The non-profit Wikimedia Foundation puts those donation drive banners on Wikipedia, and those banners misleadingly suggest that money will go mostly or entirely to Wikipedia (it won't) and that your donations are necessary for Wikipedia to continue running (they're not). The Wikimedia Foundation receives upwards of $150 million dollars a year, which is much more than the upkeep of Wikipedia, ⅔ of which is not from the individual small donors who respond to those banners.
Wikipedia's internal "newspaper", The Signpost, has a couple of pretty thorough articles on the controversy. The short version is that a) The Wikimedia Foundation receives millions in funding via corporate donations from tech giants like Google (more than enough to sustain Wikipedia on their own), while the income from banner ads represents about a third of their yearly finances, and b) they then spend the vast majority of that funding on things that aren't Wikipedia:
Total expenses were $146 million (an increase of $34 million, or 30.5%, over the year prior). Some key expenditure items:
Salaries and wages rose to $88 million (an increase of $20 million, or 30%, over the year prior).
Some of those are a bit nebulous, but even if you're charitable (and we are talking donations!) you can lump in "professional service expenses", "other operating expenses" and "Internet hosting" together as "funding Wikipedia", for a total of $31.7 million, which is about 22% of what they receive in donations. For that matter, it's less than half of what they receive in "large" donations, before we even start factoring in donations from sympathetic Wikipedia visitors. Meanwhile, the Foundation spends $103 million on paying its own staff and giving awards and grants to other people or organizations.
Now, you can certainly make the case that individual donations allow the Wikimedia Foundation to remain independent from corporate or other influence, because they in theory could stop taking those large donations and continue operating Wikipedia, albeit they'd have to slash their staff salaries, grants and other expenses to do so, since, say it with me, the vast bulk of their money is not going toward Wikipedia's upkeep.
I want to be clear that I don't think any of this stuff is evil, just that it's misleading to suggest your donations go any more than a fraction toward the continued operation of Wikipedia. Wikipedia will be fine either way, but the WMF certainly appreciates your donations.
Well said, thanks for this info! I was in the camp of thinking "of course the money goes to Wikipedia's upkeep" but I never examined it closely enough.
I already deleted a mastodon account over the instance admin's "wait and see" position.
Strongly and preemptively shunning meta is the course of action I view as the correct one, most likely to preserve what the fediverse is and tries to be.
I am not sure I understand. The fediverse is supposed to be pretending ideas that aren't in line with yours are evil and the people who have them are incapable of reason or morality? That only perpetuates the divide. Truly evil people are a much smaller percentage of the population than the internet implies. Let's actually talk about things openly and work together peacefully. Don't assume you're arguing with some evil bastard with horrible intentions. Assume you're arguing with someone whose perspective has been shaped by their actual experiences and isn't so dense they'll never budge. Maybe then humans can accept MORE types of people than just the ones that are popular at the time. If you don't think that's a better future maybe you should look inwardly.
What does that have to do with letting in a known bad corporate actor who has made clear their intention to destroy what makes the fediverse the fediverse?
The safest and most effective way to prevent Meta from destroying ActivityPub is to never give them so much as an inch. They WILL embrace, extend, extinguish if given the chance. Defederate from ALL Meta-owned instances. Be vocal about it. Tell other instances to do the same.
It seems unlikely to me that corporate instances would ever actually federate in good faith.
They may appear to be compliant initially, but in the long term they just have different goals.
I'm not sure where exactly the line gets drawn, but at the far extreme, I say we treat money-making instances as bad actors. If they stand to gain profit from their actions, they need to be defederated to prevent the sabotaging or enshittification of the fediverse.
To grossly oversimplify the contents of that article, I think federating in bad faith could look like:
Joining the ActivityPub protocol, intending to drown the initial userbase with their own so that the fediverse begins catering to the needs of the majority aka their users.
Introducing subtle bugs that make certain instances function suboptimally, but putting the onus on minor developers to fix it because major portions of the user base comes from them.
Adding features to the ActivityPub protocol that benefit all users, but forces most instances to adopt their practices.
Creating their own version of the protocol "ActivityPub+". It's initially open source and well documented, but increasingly deviates from ActivityPub, until it's functionally closed source fully under their control. It's also mandatory to interact their instances.
Defederating everyone who doesn't fall in step, but that's okay because 99% of content is now on MetaPub anyways. This fractures the Fediverse into confused micro shards (or compliant loyalists).
This is a slight tangent now, but Tik Tok's Enshitification by Corey Doctorow describes another great example of long-timeline corporate "playbooks" or patterns that are... not good but increasingly common. That's where Reddit seems to be going unfortunately, but at least we can see why.
That's a good breakdown, thanks! The bad thing is that I could see these issues happening even unintentionally, with the fact that we have a few large instances vs. many smaller ones. So far we seem to have everyone running the same code, straight from the repositories (at least functionality wise). For my own kbin instance though, I have technically changed things. I changed some code to make a custom logo appear nicely, I've added some padding here and there, etc. I have also thought about implementing an automatic job that clears posts tagged with 'nsfw' or other related things in the microblog feed.
I might implement that, and then submit it to the kbin devs if it works well. There's no guarantee that other admins/devs would do that as well. If they implement a feature that makes their community more popular, they would seem to have incentive to keep it private. And that's where stuff like Meta comes in. If they implement rigorous content filtering, I doubt that would make it into the actual AP protocol. It would be the differentiating factor between using their 'safe' instance, vs. going rugged on an independent instance.
They could say "we implement the ActivityPub protocol as specified" and they wouldn't be wrong. They would just have some extras added onto the top to make their experience more polished. Easy to do when you are a for-profit and have plenty of devs. They would just argue that those are the features that make their interface different, like kbin and lemmy are different.
The only way around it is for communities to agree that they will run the software as released, maybe with only cosmetic changes. Any improvements to functionality should be submitted to the devs so that the wider community can benefit.
Kbin and Lemmy are licensed under the AGPL, so instance source code changes are required to be shared with those that connect to that instance (I assume that includes peer instances as well as users). Corpos can make their own proprietary instances, but they'll have to start from scratch and not just piggyback on top of our work.
draw users in with piles of money and way better exposure, then get everyone on board with your well ran service with good ui and 100% uptime. Play nice with everyone else, meanwhile gaining dominance on the fediverse. Get a very large userbase in comparison to everyone else. Now, once you gain that dominance, you basically control the fediverse. You can steer it anyway you want. You could even defederate with your userbase and enjoy your new found network built on the back of the community.
@Melpomene I'm concerned about the B-Corp getting big, but staying profit driven. Imagine if Steam had an instance. That seems... fine, I guess, for now. But then let's say Steam suddenly acquires the entire video game industry lol. That's definitely a problem. But what if they do it over.. 12 years? At what point are we supposed to realize we're frogs getting boiled?
And non-profits, yeah, you're probably right that they should be fine.
But okay, do you know MEC? They were initially Mountain Equipment Co-op, technically a non-profit. Now they're Mountain Equipment Company, a retail store, but most customers barely registered the difference. This type of thing concerns me lol.
I think B Corps and non-profits can be allowed to make magazines here, that's fine. They just need to follow our rules. They won't like it, but no risk of Fediverse collapse ever, and honestly it's probably best if we get to hold them accountable this way.
kbin.social is in particular situation, as it is the only top 15 server by monthly users, which is not Mastodon. The only Fediverse instances bigger than kbin.social, are:
mastodon.social
pawoo.net (Japanese, Sujitech)
(a lolicon server)
(two fake and one sus Russian instances).
Every other Fediverse server has less monthly users.
It tempts to try federation with Meta, mainly to try Threads' handling of the real threading app.
Meta is going to embrace ActivityPub with Threads by Instagram. Are we (free Fediverse users, creators, programmers, etc.) able to extend, and extinguish Meta's app?
Different Fedi software support articles, threading, formatting, fancy formatting (Misskey-Flavoured Markdown), video, events. I doubt, that new Facebook's app would support all of these at once.
I do think that facebook's app will do all that at once. It's the one app I'm looking for. I mean I can federate all over the place, but still need seperate apps or websites to view the content correctly. Facebook has a shitton of programmers and already some libraries from other apps they can reuse. It wil even make my (for just a slight moment) hesitate if I need to use their app with other servers. But of course I won't, because META sucks.
@shepherd A warning about Pawoo: it is FAR TOO EASY to accidentally see lolicon hentai art there right now, despite the admins trying to do something about CP (https://pawoo.net/web/statuses/110195807808920534). The legality and morality of lolicon hentai vs real human CP is another thing but at the moment that shit is out there in the open. Also, they don't allow you to search for text within posts, so you're limited to the global feed where you can encounter the aformentioned, or you have to specifically know who you want to follow and curate from there.
It can go all kind of ways. But no matter whether they are blocked or not, they will build their own platform and add 'value' to it. And with 'value' I mean something most people like to use and what makes people feel like they need to be on that platform.
Maybe it will federate with the rest, maybe they're just looking at how they can couple facebook, instagram and whatsapp together through federation. And maybe all three will enter fediverse and you can federate with them. Of course while missing some 'key' features of those platforms. Or they just want to scrape the platform and build on that. Who knows what META will do and how they will do it. They want to be relevant and make money by selling data.
This is actually an entirely possible scenario - given the EU's digital markets act that kicks in next year, this would be a quick and easy way for Meta to be compliant - they can say they are using an open standard, which fully complies with the requirements of the EU act.
I don’t think there should be blind hostility but it should be clear that any hint of embrace, extend, extinguish will result in hostile actions like defederation. I also don’t think targeted ad tech companies share the goals of the Fediverse. I wouldn’t be bothered if instances had sponsors (as in, “/Kbin is made possible by support from Cloudflare”) like all non-profit media. But any sort of targeted ads based on user activity/data should be ruled out as a way to fund the metaverse.
The problem is that if I want to communicate with Meta users, then my content gets copied onto Meta's servers, just because of how the fediverse works. Everything is a local copy first, then gets federated. So if I reply to someone who is a Meta user, in order for them to see my comment it must get copied to Meta servers. The only way to stop this is to defederate with them (which means the server you are on would not send anything to Meta servers).
Are you familiar with the embrace, extend, extinguish process referenced by the top commenter? Just wondering if this comment is made with understanding of that process.
Personally, I don’t want Meta’s money and army of paid developers to be able to make “surface level” improvements that incentivize non-technical users to join their instance, while hiding an increasingly hostile and profit-driven framework underneath.
Here’s a blog post passed around a lot today on the issue. I’m not totally sold one way or another, so if you have insight I’d love to learn more.
It certainly could be. Each server is responsible for keeping track of activity on the network. It hasn't been an issue so far since all the "big" servers are relatively equal and the overall network is still small. If Kbin suddenly had to process and record every single Reddit comment/thread, it would be a massive drain on CPU resources and immediately cause data issues as Kbin just doesn't have the data capacity that a giant company is capable of building out. Federating all the things may not be viable in the organic future, but we would get there much quicker if a mega server started dumping messages hard.
The thing about federation is that every server basically copies any content that the users on it want to see. So if a comment/post is made on lemmy.world, lemmy.world sends out an update to every other server on which a user is subscribed to the thread/community/user. So each instance that has a subscribed user ends up having to process the new comment/post. If a Meta community came in with say, a million users, now every instance has to process the comments for all those users (that is, if folks on those instances want to see that Meta content).
It is a bit inefficient, but it's just the way a decentralized network has to function. I could see many people thinking that any time you open a thread, the data comes in from the originating instance, i.e. that your home instance doesn't store the data you are viewing. It is unfortunately, and I think it will be a problem in the future as communities grow.
Add comment