I hope there’ll be people discussing sensibly.
For example the question how the rest of the fediverse would like Meta to act, when / if they have the by far largest instance on Fediverse with Threads.
Should they Rate-Limit queries from their users to other Instances, as to not overload them? This would protect other instances, but make the federated experience worse, driving more people to threads.
Would the Fediverse rather that Meta mirrors images etc on their servers too, or pull those from the original server?
Maybe they have UX ideas that would be useful to have somewhat uniform (like the subreddit/community/magazine stuff here), and would like input on them.
Of course just blocking them is an option for the fediverse, but doing that blindly seems like a missed opportunity for both sides.
More freely available content would be great, wouldn’t it?
Maybe they have Ideas on the protocol, that they want to talk with admins about as a first step to gain more perspective. And certainly they are likely to be data-hungry greedy shit, but there is a chance that they are actually good ideas - there are actual people working at meta after all.
There’s tons of ways in which this could be useful, and I don’t really understand the completely blocking approach I see a lot of.
They want to use ActivityPub, that’s awesome, finally something new and big that uses an open freaking standard on the web. What are the downsides? If it sucks for communities they can easily block Meta.
Yes, Meta is not a Company working for the betterment of the world, certainly.
But maybe, just maybe, goals align here, and Meta can make money and improve the Fediverse and the Internet with it. And certainly, maybe they want to “take over” ActivityPub, and that would indeed be bad. And even then, wouldn’t knowing because they told you be much better than knowing because they’re meta?
So, if they want to change the Protocol, be very, very wary of their proposals. But even there there they could just want reasonable improvements because they suddenly deal with 100x of the next biggest instances.
tl;dr: when you tell people what you’d like them to do, it increases the chances of them doing that.
No one is preventing people who have Facebook or Instagram accounts from joining the fediverse by blocking Meta. What they are doing, is preemptively taking action to ensure an immoral company doesn't do exactly what it has shown itself to be in it's nature to do.
Everything you post online is public by default, stored, copied or archived by third parties without your knowledge. They don't need a huge instance to grab data from the fediverse if they want to do that.
God thank you, I swear some people fail to realise just how ActivityPub federation works!
Post something on fedi and you lose effective control over it; for all intents and purposes, it's out there on hundreds of different servers who don't have to respect your deletion requests, and it's never coming back.
And to be perfectly honest, I'm more comfortable with Meta archiving all my shitposts than, I dunno, all the nazis.
more freely available content would be great, right?
doesn't hold true. For example I don't need a flood of Instragram thots on my Mastodon or Lemmy pages, even if I got it for free. Quality is more important than quantity, I am here for in-depth discussions on current events and issues we face, with individuals capable of empathy and critical thinking. Considering the types of interactions that come from Facebook and related sites, I need better public reassurance that Meta's involvement won't tank the platform and it's vibe.
We've handled the Reddit migration about as well as we could have hoped, but the folks on Meta are a whole different beast. Many will be fine but there will also be a chunk of people completely blind to forum Nettiquite.
Lastly Meta acting behind closed doors is antithetical to FOSS development ethos. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I would refuse closed door discussions but be open to public ones. NDAs are rich corporations' tools to silence people.
More freely available content would be great, wouldn’t it?
I doubt most people moved to the fediverse simple because of better content. Personally I didn't. And quantity doesn't mean quality.
And certainly they are likely to be data-hungry greedy shit, but there is a chance that they are actually good ideas - there are actual people working at meta after all.
Contributions are open for these people. But the moment the contributions are facilitated through Meta, they represent Metas business interests.
What are the downsides?
Control. Meta could swamp the fediverse and just because its open source the current platforms wouldnt necessarily continue to exist in the same way they currently do. We could see even bigger fragmentation or breaks, some Admins might feel forced to federate with Metas service, leading to the currently existing community breaking up.
But maybe, just maybe, goals align here, and Meta can make money and improve the Fediverse and the Internet with it.
Imo the last years has proven, without a doubt, that those things simply do not align.
To conclude: We have seen these things before and they havent ended well. People here seem to undererstimate the power Meta has and the impact that this power has. Even if all current instances were to defederate from Meta, simple association, user demand caused by an influx of Meta users and hard to guess power dynamics would make the fediverse a far different place than it currently is. To make a comparison: you cant drop the gravity well of a black hole into a small, complex planetary system and expect it to be unaffected.
There seems very little incentive for Meta to federate with anyone, except good faith, right?
They’ll double the Fediverse Userbase in an hour, or less.
It'd be entirely open to Meta to simply turn off federation, in the same way that Truth Social and Counter Social have.
But honestly if I were them, given the hostile reaction I'd probably just do that and knock the whole ActivityPub thing on the head. It feels like a waste of time when realistically they would get more people on Threads/P92 in one day than a million Musk-buying-Twitters could do with Mastodon. Then everyone is happy - no Meta on fedi, Meta gets its new exciting Twitter clone that it fully controls.
Put it this way - either they're up to some form of non-specific evil, in which case they can probably achieve whatever goals they have far more concretely if they fully control the content on Threads, or they're not and all this is actually in good faith, in which case they're doing this for the benefit of a few hundred thousand fedi nerds who have reacted mostly with hostility and are going to block it on sight.
Even if they are acting in good faith, I think they’ve earned our derision and deserve to be shut out. You don’t get to play unfairly for decades then turn around and expect no consequences.
No incentive other than good faith? This is one of the most profitable corporations that has ever existed, talking to one of its competitors. If you think this is how corporations operate, I've got news for you. This is like Capitalism 101.
Yeah, because the ~2 Million monthly active users on the whole fediverse actually matters to the company with 2.95 billion active users on Facebook and 1.2 billion monthly active users on Instagram.
those 2 Million Fediverse users are .06% or .167% compared.
yeah, those rounding errors are totally the reason why Meta is going for ActivityPub
If it didn't matter, they wouldn't even acknowledge its existence. And yet, here we are, talking about meetings with mods/admins (or whatever they're called on lemmy).
Exactly... Do people think it's just a coincidence that they're suddenly so interested? They see a potential hole in the market left by reddit, and in their minds, they're the multi-billion dollar corporation to fill it.
Nobody's saying that, in terms of user bases, the Fediverse is comparable to Facebook or Instagram. And it seems to me that you are misrepresenting why people here, myself included, don't want our instances to federated with Facebook. It's not that we don't want bigger communities. Most of us have been on Facebook or Reddit and have given up on those bigger communities and adopted the Fediverse because it aligns with our values and privacy principles. Facebook does not. Its Fediverse platform will not suddenly be the opposite of what the company has been doing for more than a decade.
Nobody’s saying that, in terms of user bases, the Fediverse is comparable to Facebook or Instagram
Well, maybe I got the wrong impression, but I felt like the userbase of the fediverse was implied as the motivation for Meta federating.
And I wanted to put in a comparison, why I don’t think that this is the case.
I don’t see a reason why Meta should want Threads to federate, except for “well, whatever, doesn’t hurt us to get those fractions of a percent”. They’ll probably have to use whitelists anyway, due to different legal situations on different instances. So at best they’ll federate with some of the bigger instances.
Most of us have been on Facebook or Reddit and have given up on those bigger communities and adopted the Fediverse because it aligns with our values and privacy principles.
I’m sorry to tell you, but your privacy isn’t exactly great here.
Every Thread, Comment and Upvote at least can be requested from any fediverse instance.
And do you know what, you don’t even have to be a fediverse instance yourself to do that.
But I guess you knew that, so you’re here because nobody tracks what you look at, which is great, and because you like Open Source.
That’s not going to Change when Meta Federates.
Facebook does not. Its Fediverse platform will not suddenly be the opposite of what the company has been doing for more than a decade.
That’s true.
But it will be two things, if I may steal the analogy of someone else in this thread: first it will be a black hole ripping through the Fediverse.
I’d like that to do as little damage as possible.
I’d love it if mastodon continues to grow after Metas release, and doesn’t collapse under server costs, Spam and other detrimental effects.
For that, preparing for the coming storm seems useful.
second it will be a huge amount of possible connections, of people.
I’d love to be able to toot a reply to some meta thread.
I mean, wouldn’t it be nice if the fediverse would already know certain rules that meta may require to federate with them? And I mean sensible rules, like no/flagged porn, issues with piracy etc.
One could also talk about how Meta allows/blocks instances. A lot of legal trouble for Meta could probably be avoided if they only show posts from a whitelist of instances, but any user could post to their instance.
But how would they deal with non-whitelisted instances trying to pull Threads-Content?
Maybe they want to talk about how to deal with those “half-federating” situations, because this is not the current norm, and they may not actually get more bad press when a meeting could have prevented it.
For both of these effects I think communication with meta can only help.
It seems we have different priorities and concerns, and I can respect that.
I'm skeptical of Facebook, as I see the potential of it attempting to take over the Fediverse. As I've said in a different comment recently, Facebook's business model goes against the Fediverse's business model. And, in the long term, the Fediverse model has the potential to compete with larger for-profit corporations. And, as it has done in the past with the acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp, Facebook is now once again trying to prevent its demise by joining the Fediverse. Again, I'm not saying that the Fediverse is an existential threat to Facebook now, but it could be in the future. As people increasingly become weary of big corporations stealing their data, Facebook has to pretend that it's changing. That it has learned from its past mistakes. And I just don't buy it.
We're here because these large corporations have failed us.
Yes, I wasn't implying that Google or Facebook cannot see what we're talking, when I mentioned the privacy concerns. I was referring to this data not being used to profile us for targeted ads.
first it will be a black hole ripping through the Fediverse.
Not if most instances choose not to federate with Facebook. People who want to be on a federated instance can sign up to that instance. The option to not federate is a build-in feature of the Fediverse, and I hope kbin.social takes advantage of that. If not, I'll see myself out and look for an instance that does.
The 'embrace, extend, extinguish' strategy is a well known one. Set out with a strategy to become the biggest instance, capture lots and lots of new users. Introduce some swanky new features that 'unfortunately initially don't federate very well, but we are working in that'. Then defederate from other instances that don't adopt your features - etc etc
But they won't be capturing new users from the Fediverse, they will capture them from Facebook and Instagram, and since this is mainly a Twitter competitor, also from Twitter.
I'd guess the plan is that if the fediverse and meta mingles together, the fedi-users start to follow the meta users in such amount that when the breakup finally happens, they are reliant on meta to continue. People stay on facebook, eating the ads and manipulation just because their mothers and friends are there.
Just thought about the future nightmare of receiving an invite on mastodon to a friends private meta-instance "party" and to view it you are suddenly offered to either decline or import your fedi-account.
I think you're missing the point. We are weary of Facebook's decision to enter the Fediverse exactly because we know it sees the Fediverse as a long-term threat and it could try to extinguish it. While they at first would adopt open standards and protocols, what stops them from creating proprietary extensions and using those and its dominance and resources to make it difficult for users to switch to other platforms in the Fediverse?
While they at first would adopt open standards and protocols, what stops them from creating proprietary extensions and using those and its dominance and resources to make it difficult for users to switch to other platforms in the Fediverse?
Nothing, which should probably raise concerns around how good a standard ActivityPub actually is if all it takes to drive a truck through its intent is one bad actor.
Is it really fair to call Facebook just one bad actor? It's one of the largest corporations in the world, has some of the largest social media and messaging platforms out there. In terms of resources, there are very few companies, let alone individuals or groups, that can compete with Facebook.
If you look at it in these terms, you understand that Facebook has an interest in making sure that ActivityPub doesn't too large without Facebook having a say in it. If it could control the whole internet, I'm sure it would. So, no, I don't agree with your framing of the issue.
If you look at it in these terms, you understand that Facebook has an interest in making sure that ActivityPub doesn't too large without Facebook having a say in it.
I don't think that ActivityPub is having any present difficulty keeping itself niche without Facebook's help - fedi has a total active user base of something like 2million, it's very literally a rounding error on Meta's user numbers. If there's a battle here, Facebook is already winning.
If that's the case then there's no need for it to be off-record. Unless the conversation of what you pointed out is open to scrutiny it shouldn't happen.
This is the real point here. If this is a legit talk about legit points then it can be open for everyone to see.
Starting talks with Meta behind closed doors can never happen. If they have something to say or ask then they can do it publicly.
I am all for talk, because that's the part that hurts no one, but make it as transparent as humanly possible from all angles.
I also want to know what "the enemy" is up to, so invite them to talk as much as possible, we do not need to agree to anything just because we were talking/listening.
This is super naive. Facebook/Meta has zero interest in "playing nice" with competitors in any field. Their intentions with the fediverse are not pure, and you're a fool if you think otherwise.
This is capitalism, and this is one of the most profitable corporations that has ever existed on the planet. A corporation who has made those profits almost entirely from the private data of its users (and even some users that aren't subscribed to their service. That's how much data they have).
They don't "work together" with competitors "for the good of everyone." That's a pipe dream.
@TheYang@steb They want to use an open protocol? That's great.
But then they should be open about their intentions, and not send invitations to a few select individuals to a confidential "off the record" "roundtable". This seems just too fishy to me.
I agree with you, and I appreciate that Facebook at least tries to reach out, but after all that happened I also understand that there is a certain aversion against Facebook.
I can imagine all sorts of technical points like how the firehose will be load-balanced so as to not overwhelm any instance, or what metadata they should include in their feeds. Meta also has a lot of AI and moderation expertise that could be of benefit to the Fediverse once it grows into an attractive enough target for the troll farms and spambots.
Quite frankly, the sooner that festering cesspool that is Twitter is killed off, the better off the planet will be. If it takes Meta to wean the talking heads like Oprah from Twitter, so be it. It would be better if Oprah set up her own instance, but that's unlikely to happen, media businesses still haven't understood they need to take control over their distribution rather than the easy way of going through big social networks that will stab them in the back when expedient like Facebook deprioritizing media outlets from users' feeds.
Respectful post, but respectfully disagree. The longer the fediverse can stay free of monetary-driven communities, the longer it will last. Wait until the proposals for blue check marks and karma hit the ActivityPup "plus" standard and it's too late for the platform.
tl;dr: when you tell people what you’d like them to do, it increases the chances of them doing that.
In my experience when you tell huge corporations what you'd like them to do, it has no bearing on whether or not they will do that.
Facebook/Meta wouln't even moderate out incitements to genocide when multiple people asked that of them for years, so it seems naive to assume they care at all about the people in the fediverse.
They are profit driven with a laser focus, and this is a really obvious attempt at co opting, not collaborating.
Facebook/Meta wouln't even moderate out incitements to genocide
This might cause instances to have a legal obligation not to federate with them, as some countries forbid you from supporting places where hate speech exists.
That’s nice and all, but before we get to any of this there’s a fundamental incentive schism to overcome first. People flock to the fediverse because they are tired of being treated like cattle. If you are not the paying customer, you are the product. And you will never–NEVER–be catered to. That’s the bottom line here.
I agree. The Beautiful thing here would be that people sick of Meta could still go to fosstodon, and they could still talk to their niece on Metas Threads.
I can’t help but see that as a win for the people not on metas software.
The problem here isn't talking to Meta or Meta making a federated platform.
Nobody can prevent Meta from doing that anyway.
The problem is the need to push against the insistence of Meta to keep these meetings off the record. It's against the entire philosophy of something like not only fediverse but FOSS in general.
If Meta wants good faith, they have to show it first.
Notice that in the email, Kev gives his guidance as to the matter. Do whatever the fuck you want as long as you put people first and make a product for the purpose of serving them.
This should be the attitude everyone should have first.
We will accept you as long as you're bringing value to us, not the other way round, got that Meta?
As long as any dev is taking this approach, Meta included, I'm supporting them. If someone is secretive about their intentions about a public service which is not a for profit endeavor inherently, I'll have a hard pass too.
How is it a win for me if I specifically signed up for a fediverse account to get away from data-hoarding, money-driven corporations like Facebook? I don't want Facebook to have access to my account information, posts and comments. I think you're missing the point about who this company is and the extent to which it is willing to go to get people's data.
I don't want Facebook to have access to my account information, posts and comments.
I hate to break it to you, but the very nature of the fediverse (as a distributed network where posts and account information automatically get distributed to hundreds if not thousands of independent servers you may or may not be aware of, that do not necessarily have to honour your deletion requests) means that it would be absolutely trivial for either Facebook or any other random bad actor you could think of to have access to all of that, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
This is an example I've given a few times, but if Meta were really just wanting to suck down data for the evulz (why they would do this I have absolutely no idea because it's not like they could use that data for anything), they don't need to start an instance amid a blaze of publicity. They could just go on Mastodon.social, sign up for a no-name account, grab an API key and suck down the contents of the fediverse in real time and that's the end of it. The fediverse is not private and its very nature means that control over one's own data is not quite as secure as ActivityPub advocates would like to pretend.
But that wasn't my point. It's not that I think that Facebook or Google cannot scrape Fediverse platforms/instances, it's that even if they do, they cannot serve targeted ads based on our activity here.
We have different definitions for privacy. Since I'm active here, it should be clear that to me private doesn't mean hidden. I like how the EFF put it, in their article on the Fediverse:
[T]he default with incumbent platforms is usually an all-or-nothing bargain where you accept a platform’s terms or delete your account. The privacy dashboards buried deep in the platform’s settings are a way to tinker in the margins, but even if you untick every box, the big commercial services still harvest vast amounts of your data. To rely on these major platforms is to lose critical autonomy over your privacy, your security, and your free expression.
But that wasn't my point. It's not that I think that Facebook or Google cannot scrape Fediverse platforms/instances, it's that even if they do, they cannot serve targeted ads based on our activity here.
This is another one of those things where Meta's claimed motivations for this don't seem to stack up.
How exactly are Meta supposed to serve "targeted ads" to me, @bloonface, if I am on finecity.social and not [whatever Meta's instance is]?
If I don't have an account on their service, and never visit their website, they have no opportunity to put a tracking cookie on my computer, no opportunity to serve an ad to me (other than directly messaging me, behaviour which would absolutely get them defedded instantly by anyone who is even close to being on the fence about their presence), no link between my finecity.social account and any Meta accounts I may have... what benefit do they obtain from this?
Bluntly - how is this dastardly plan of theirs actually physically supposed to work?
A lot of people seem to have ascribed omnipotent powers to Meta far beyond what they are actually technically capable of. They can't deliver you a tracking cookie or make your instance display a banner ad to you through ActivityPub, ffs.
Fucking thank you. Are people really this gullible? Maybe I have a different perspective because I've been free from Facebook for like 15 years now, but do these people really think that Meta/Facebook wants to be nice to its competitors? Suddenly they're going to give up the business model that has made them one of the biggest, most profitable corporations that has ever existed on this planet, and do the exact opposite of what they did to get there? LOL.
I'm honestly questioning if TheYang is reading our comments or if they are just spewing the same talking points regardless of the arguments presented to them. It's baffling to see people so willing to embrace a corporation that has done nothing but exploit its users and their privacy.
Of course just blocking them is an option for the fediverse, but doing that blindly seems like a missed opportunity for both sides.
More freely available content would be great, wouldn’t it?
The issue is once you open these floodgates you're not going to be able to close them, at least not without alienating a vast majority of users on both sides. Furthermore, once meta gains the majority of users and content on its instances (and this is really more of a "when", not "if" situation), they can start making changes to AP and overall infrastructure and forcing other instances to either adapt to that, or get left behind one by one, similar to what google does regardless of W3C and other browsers have to adapt even though it goes against the agreed standard.
If meta gains a foothold in the fediverse and eventually start isolating the smaller instances, it's going to be the email situation all over again, we'll have just a few large trusted providers and the rest will be a seemingly unsafe niche that most people avoid. Giving them the benefit of the doubt is just foolish, meta will not let a few fediverse admins dictate their policy (even assuming they have the backbone to stand up to them, and considering the recent meeting/NDA/"shareholder" drama most of them definitely don't).
The issue is once you open these floodgates you’re not going to be able to close them, at least not without alienating a vast majority of users on both sides.
I mean, users of Meta producs are already plenty alienated from Lemmy etc, aren’t they?
once meta gains the majority of users and content on its instances (and this is really more of a “when”, not “if” situation)
I mean, it’s a matter of… minutes? hours?, probably not days even.
That’s why I’d like to be able to talk to them.
they can start making changes to AP and overall infrastructure and forcing other instances to either adapt to that, or get left behind one by one, similar to what google does regardless of W3C and other browsers have to adapt even though it goes against the agreed standard.
And I agree that these are very very dangerous. I wouldn’t say they could only be bad, but still.
Anyway, not following bad changes by meta would leave people where?
Exactly where they are right now.
In that case, Meta joining the fediverse would have been a failed experiment.
it’s going to be the email situation all over again, we’ll have just a few large trusted providers and the rest will be a seemingly unsafe niche that most people avoid.
I have to say… That seems like a win though.
Billions of people using interoparable software to talk to each other. Email is a brilliant success!
Yes, having “few” larger instances isn’t great, but on the other hand most companies run their own email server, and those talk fine with anyone else.
Doesn’t seem like a terrible result to me.
Much rather “the Email situation” than the “whatsapp situation” or “signal situation” or “facebook situation” or “reddit situation” or “instagram situation” or “tiktok situation” where you have to join that specific thing to talk to people.
Anyway, not following bad changes by meta would leave people where?
Exactly where they are right now.
In that case, Meta joining the fediverse would have been a failed experiment.
Not really, in the greater context of meta controlling the vast majority of fediverse we would be the ones that are a failed experiment, a niche group of old people yelling at clouds, not willing to get with the times and join the instance that has all the content, all the users and all the new tech improvements. Just look at how much shit beehaw got for temporarily defederating the 2 largest lemmy instances, now imagine when that happens to your instance and it gets cut off from meta permanently. It'd be like trying to maintain a twitter competitor while twitter was still in its golden age.
Billions of people using interoparable software to talk to each other. Email is a brilliant success!
People don't create private instances or join smaller communities for their email provider, they go to gmail, hotmai or even protonmail for the promise of stability, safety and compatibility with others, not getting listed as spam bots or their mail going straight into trash. Companies have dedicated people to handle this but in my experience even they just end up using microsoft or google software in the background, just with their custom domain. It is a big success for email and these corporations, it is a terrible story for the open and community-controlled internet and fediverse.
a niche group of old people yelling at clouds, not willing to get with the times and join the instance that has all the content, all the users and all the new tech improvements.
I feel like this already describes us pretty darn well.
So I don’t see the disadvantage to potentially going back here.
People don’t create private instances or join smaller communities for their email provider, they go to gmail, hotmai or even protonmail for the promise of stability, safety and compatibility with others, not getting listed as spam bots or their mail going straight into trash.
I feel like this already describes us pretty darn well.
So I don’t see the disadvantage to potentially going back here.
Not quite sure what your point is, just general apathy? Currently the servers you listed are practically 100% of fediverse, we're literally the early adopters right now and not the isolated obsolete old people. If meta comes you're not going to get to "go back here", that's the whole point of discussion - what them coming means for the current fediverse and what kind of damage it can cause.
you mean like the 89.5% of active users of kbin being on kbin.social or 50% of active lemmy users being on lemmy.ml, lemmy.world or beehaw.org?
Fediverse has gotten a massive sudden influx of players and it's natural that everyone rushed the few available instances. If anything, the fact that it's split between kbin.social, lemmy.ml, lemmy.world, beehaw rather than everyone being on just one is already a good sign.
as long as it’s still possible to create smaller communities it’s fine.
¯\(ツ)/¯
You can still do the same on reddit yet you felt the need to come here, so obviously you care at least a bit about outside interference.
Not quite sure what your point is, just general apathy?
That we have different perspectives. I already see us as the old guys shouting at the clouds (of reddit etc) for being bad. I certainly shout enough at most of Metas and Googles and Apples and Tencents products to fit that bill. I certainly don’t have all of the technology that some other people use, because I’m not willing to sell my soul to those companies any more.
I don’t feel like an early adopter. Lemmy is 4 years old, ActivityPub is 5 years old, Mastodon is 7 Years old.
I feel much more like a niche idiot who doesn’t want to give FAANG the rights to his data, and because of that doesn’t live with the times and doesn’t have google maps, isn’t on instagram for my friends to reach and doesn’t know about the latest tiktok trend.
If meta comes you’re not going to get to “go back here”, that’s the whole point of discussion - what them coming means for the current fediverse and what kind of damage it can cause.
No, it’s about what happens here when meta comes. We will not stop it.
And yes, Meta can do quite a lot of damage, although I’d guess a “non-meta-fediverse” i.e. a fediverse that completely blocks all meta-content would reasonably quickly look just like this, because it’s what we have right now.
Anyway, because of the damage they can do, one should talk to them. Even if you can’t sway them one iota, you learn of their plans, and can act accordingly.
You can still do the same on reddit yet you felt the need to come here, so obviously you care at least a bit about outside interference.
No I can’t create a small reddit and federate with my friends small reddit, let alone the mother-reddit.
I can’t even create a small (modern) reddit, as the code is not open anymore.
I don't think there's a point in continuing this discussion, we obviously have different expectations and experiences about this. I'll just leave you with this article that is being spread around that says all of what I've been trying to say in a much more detailed and sourced way. https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
Maybe you get something from it that you couldn't from my comments, otherwise I just hope you're right and history doesn't repeat yet again, somehow.
@bandario@giallo Look at you being a big boy with big threats. Up until a month ago you and the instance you're in didn't even exist on the Fediverse. You think your empty intimidation tactics are going to work on anyone? Don't take this as me supporting Meta btw.
My guess is that anyone attending will have to sign an NDA. That will make it hard to speak out against Meta joining the federation. If someone does say anything, the Meta lawyers will destroy them.
The reactivity of Svelte leaves a lot to be desired. The only difference between a computed property and a mutable property is let x = and $: x =, both of which are declared in the same top-level scope and doesn't provide much to distinguish them. The lack of reactivity on arrays and objects is a major foot-gun by default. The number of places they say "this looks weird, but don't worry it'll soon become second nature" in the docs shows that they acknowledge it's bad design to create code that is misleading or goes against the grain/standard for what behavior developers should expect (makes it confusing to work with and then use anything else, or vice versa).
The #await template directive is interesting; I'm not sure I agree it should be handled in the template instead of the script but if combined it would remove some boilerplate loading = true/false and error = 'message' variables from script scope.
React is incredibly popular because so many companies use it. They are banking on Facebook's continued support and development, and an assumption that if Facebook is doing it then it must be right. Being rich does not automatically make one right. Having worked at a company that forced React on its developers against their wishes I can unequivocally say it's bad.
In any system the right action should be the default action. Query parameters should be parameterized by default, variables in HTML templates should be contextually escaped by default, and so forth. "Don't make me think". React is the complete opposite of that: It requires you to constantly think about the render loop (aka "Component Function"), it hides the fact there is an object behind the scenes containing the component state, the documentation is littered with "don't worry about this feature until after you have a performance problem, then come back here for the solution", it's very neat and tidy for tiny example projects but does not scale well as the project grows.
Compare that with a system like Vue or Lit, which is much more intuitive, does the right thing by default, and is easier for existing HTML/CSS/JS developers to grok at a glance.
Don't forget Svelte. That said, traction means more developers trained in any tech stack, that's why my previous company ditched Vue for React circa 2016, Vue seemed destined for oblivion and irrelevance at the time.
That is the primary argument my company used to justify forcing React. Do you know how many people we hired for their React experience? One. Everyone else was primarily backend or only had passing experience in React (not subject matter expert / does not know best practices). Meanwhile the rest of the team struggles to work in it (the frontend has become siloed) and very little of it follows best practice.
A 45 minute "round table" with multiple rando masto instance admins? That doesn't sound like enough time for the table to get very round.
It sounds more like 5 minutes introduction, 30 minute presentation by Meta, 10 minutes Q&A. But oops our presentation ran just a bit long, and I really do have a hard stop at noon so we really only have about 5 minutes for questions thanks for all of the valuable feedback we'll be sure to circle back offline.
"We here at Meta take people's privacy very seriously and are committed to protecting our users. Unfortunately at this time we can't discuss what measures we've put in place."
On the one hand I can totally understand this reaction by Kev, on the other hand, by completely locking off all discussions like this, means that there's no way to change things for the better.
Granted, it's Meta, they're not to be trusted, but still, a discussion, if one has the time, wouldn't be too bad an idea.
I'm sorry, but it's on Meta to come forward to the public Fediverse and be open with their plans, not try to organize some hush-hush meetings with Mastodon instance owners.
Connectivity on fediverse platforms like Mastodon, Lemmy rely heavily on trust between users to maintain an engaging community. Unless Meta publicly demonstrates otherwise, people are right to distrust Meta at the outset, given their past and current affairs.
Meta's P92 should release itself on the Fediverse's terms, rather than Fediverse catering to Meta's terms. Otherwise, Meta should just make their own platform and see if Fediverse instances latch onto it.
Granted, it's Meta, they're not to be trusted, but still, a discussion, if one has the time, wouldn't be too bad an idea.
It feels like Meta has to pay like a billion dollars in fines every few weeks in europe for violations. And they don't seem to plan on stopping (based on the fact that it happens every few weeks). Even faintly hoping that you could even have the smallest chance of moving even the smallest gear in Meta by appearing in such a meeting is complete delusion.
You would still know what Meta is thinking of doing on the Fediverse, and adjust course accordingly. Now we 1) know nothing, and 2) have closed off an avenue to gain information.
But if he attended he wouldn't legally be able to share information - or do anything that reveals details of the meeting without facing the wrath of Facebook's legal department.
Curious if you have a rough example of what type of positive information that will be gained from the secret, closed-off meeting, and how it could benefit the community?
How do you think we could frontrun one of the largest tech companies in the world?
They chose to close off that avenue by making it a closed, off the books, invite only meeting. And as other posters have already mentioned, its likely that the people that do show up might have to sign NDAs or something similar. So we might not have learned anything anways.
I think it would be incredibly naive and foolish to believe Meta has any kind of pure motives for this.
One of the biggest corporations in the world reaching out to its competitor to try to get them to talk "off the record" about "confidential details"... Sounds like a pretty blatant scheme to get them to reveal confidential details about their competitor's product.
Or maybe Meta has broken with decades of its own conduct, and several centuries of capitalism, in order to reach out in good faith to their competitor. LOL.
Its a really immature and niave response from Kev. Information is power, he's chosen to operate without knowledge for internet points.
Meta think there is potential to enlarge their market and make money, Kev's response won't impact their business making decisions.
Kev should have gone to the meeting to understand what Meta are planning. That would help him figure out how to deal with Meta entering the space.
I don't expect he could shape their approach but knowing they want to do X, Y or Z might make certain features/fixes a priority so it doesn't impact everyone else
I think you are seriously underestimating meta here. They know knowledge is power too, and they have an enormous amount of resources to ensure that their information is shared in the way that exposes them the least and benefits them the most. Any one person is just going to be at a severe disadvantage and is much more likely to do damage than get something positive out of it.
I think you are insinuating that because meta has money and power, he owes it to the community to hear them out. That's a capitalistic perspective that seems centered around either making money or having a larger 'market'. I wouldn't assume that this is the status quo for everyone involved in the fediverse.
Also, if Meta isn't willing to share its plans publicly, only to the owners of the largest instances online, I question their motives.
@macallik and if you scroll down the comments, Byron from Universeodon, who did take the earlier meeting, did provide some vague points from the meeting. Relating to your point about big instances, it seems likely that FB wants to throw money at them so that they won't become overwhelmed by the ensuing traffic (unlike the rest of us, I guess...) so they can demonstrate that the Instagram bridge (it's an IG product) works.
@macallik
Absolutely. If this is true then for the other small to mid-size instances it's not just an existential threat philosophically but technically. They're expecting Threads onboarding might just knock out instances because of the traffic. Might as well limit or block just for your own performance metrics.
Having a larger market = having a larger network = greater network effects for content
Having Meta join with Mastodon might actually sway people off twitter and into the fediverse where it will be easier to migrate over to a different instance.
It's foolish not to hear them out, you accomplish nothing. This isn't some silicon valley episode where he has some arkane secrets that meta engineers couldn't figure out that he might leak. Meeting with them is zero risk and he would gain more information on what they're planning.
This is not a proper talk by meta that you could just "hear them out". They explicitly said off the record and confidential, there's no reason for that if it's something innocuous. There 100% would be an NDA involved.
The fediverse is all about being open, starting with an NDA is definitely not "zero risk", you can not slip up ever, or you're going to be destroyed by lawyers, this is the exact opposite of "zero risk".
This is not a proper talk by meta that you could just "hear them out". They explicitly said off the record and confidential, there's no reason for that if it's something innocuous.
They plan on showing demos of their product to them or talking about potential features it might have. Boom, they require an NDA.
I don't think you understand how the professional world works or how common NDAs are. I've signed NDAs while going through interview processes at FAANG and other large companies just so that we can talk freely about projects I might work on. Especially for a company like Facebook where everything they do will get about a dozen news articles written, they're going to make you sign an NDA for any conversation about an unreleased product.
I don't think your assumption on how well I understand how the professional world works is correct.
I understand very well that signing any NDA is by no means "zero risk", it has a definite risk attached to it. Declining it is costly in some way, but also has definite advantages.
I also understand that very rarely is the phrasing ever "this conversation will be off the record", but rather some phrasing including the specific topics that may not be shared, like you say for example, product details. Blanket phrasings like this are always very sketchy.
It doesn't need to be said that Meta is purely driven by profit - that is any corporation. But Meta is incompetent and failing - yet still a behemoth. If they want to pour millions of dollars into the fediverse, then we don't we let them? They would presumably just be another site on the fediverse.
I totally support them joining on assuming it doesn't change the fundamental structure of the system.
This blog explains really well how destruction from the inside would work. And personally I'm not excited to have all Facebook users on here, most of that website is extremely toxic.
That article has been posted several times and does not explain how Google "destroyed" XMPP - it assumes that XMPP was some hot shit everyone was using before Google and Facebook picked it up, when in reality it was used by next to nobody, most people who used it with Google or Facebook were just using it to talk to other Google or Facebook users, XMPP doesn't support a lot of features that consumers now expect in messaging, and since Google and Facebook dropped it it has returned to being a niche FOSS thing - only now its advocates blame Google and Facebook for its failure rather than the fact it's not a very good protocol and nobody uses it.
Facebook didn't "destroy" XMPP. XMPP was a tiny messaging protocol nobody used, Facebook picked it up for a bit, stopped using it after a while, and then XMPP returned to being a tiny messaging protocol nobody used.
People are acting like Jabber was hot shit when Facebook picked it up, and its present state of irrelevance is because of big bad Zuck. No, no fucker used Jabber and it saw basically no mainstream adoption until Facebook and Google got involved, and as soon as Facebook and Google weren't involved (as it turns out that XMPP actually kind of sucks and its unique features are things end users don't care about) it returned to being a complete irrelevance. A well-intentioned irrelevance, to be sure, but an irrelevance.
Fediverse is the same, mutans mutandis. We're tiny. I know it's nice for us to psyche ourselves up and say that we're going to destroy the big bad corporate media! but in reality we are a niche constellation of social networks that has literally 0.1% of Facebook's user base and whose adoption has been, shall we say, not stellar.
Not stellar? We're having this conversation, aren't we? This place has proven to be an able replacement for Reddit, and the last thing I want to see is it become irrelevant because of Meta's involvement.
Not stellar? We're having this conversation, aren't we?
The fact that I (nerd that knows all sorts of shit about fedi and is interested in tech topics) am able to use Kbin/fedi to converse with other nerds that know about fedi and are interested in tech does not mean that the fediverse is a storming success.
I can have a conversation with one other person using tin cans and string. This does not mean that tin cans and string are the future of telecommunications.
In reality the people who I have tried to get on here who do not fall in that category were either disinterested from the start, were turned off by the complexity of how it works or stopped coming on it when it turned out there was nothing for them here.
I haven't really messed with Lemmy at all yet, but Kbin is almost exactly like signing up for/using reddit. if you can use reddit, you can figure out Kbin very easily.
I figured I'll write up a tldr on Embrace, Extend, Extinguish in case you aren't really feeling reading the articles.
Embrace: Meta builds a federated Twitter/Reddit alternative, potentially called Threads but is right now P92, that follows the ActivityPub standard almost perfectly. Various Lemmy and KBin instances federate with them and share information. Users from Facebook and Instagram flood into P92, making it one of the largest instances.
Extend: P92 starts adding nice, but proprietary features to their system. The allure of these features begins drawing users off of other instances to P92. Those instances are upset, but Meta insists it's doing nothing wrong, continues to follow the ActivityPub standard in some form, and tells the other instances to just implement the features themselves.
Extinguish: Meta announces that due to incompatibility, they are withdrawing from the standard and defederating from everyone. Most users of this software are now on P92, and thus don't mind. Meta gets a fully populated Twitter/Reddit alternative, and the remaining ActivityPub instances wither. Without user support, the standard fails, and a new open source alternative is created to replace it.
That strategy has been used to kill other open source protocols, and many people are worried it will happen again. My personal opinion is that servers should only federate with Meta if they follow the standard perfectly, and if they deviate even a little bit they should be universally defederated via software changes, but I'm sympathetic to the people that would rather be proactive than reactive.
I understand the concept of embrace extend extinguish
i just don't see a significant chunk of fediverse user giving up on open source instances and flocking to Meta's instance. I can't imagine what kind of features they could add that could accomplish this. Sure, they could make a site that's more polished but if Meta enters the game, we're going to be seeing a huge influx of both users and development. open source alternatives will likely be very close in parity
i think when considering this whole situation we need to calculate the potential positives and calculate if it's worth the risks - and those positives include huge amounts of money and people. this could be enough to push the fediverse to the next level of adoption.. the dream of having a decentralized social media system could become the standard in such a future.
you reduced my comment and favorited your own. lol
look - nobody has given me a concrete mechanism by which they could do damage. neither on here nor on mastodon where I've had similar conversations. @thesanewriter was the only one who attempted to give some sort of method - and his was that Meta's platform could become so popular it steals users. That to me isn't really unique to the fediverse
I'm not gonna hop over to Meta's platform just because it's nice and shiny.
But look at the potential benefits of Meta investing heavily into the fediverse.. we're talking millions and millions of dollars in development. i say milk meta for all they are worth, they're a failing company anyway, this is a desperate attempt on their part
To create an Instagram account, your identity has to be validated. I prefer anonymity. Once Meta gets their foot in the door, I guarantee they will try to bully the fediverse into doing things their way. Hard pass for me.
Once Meta gets their foot in the door, I guarantee they will try to bully the fediverse into doing things their way. Hard pass for me.
Can you give any reasonable by means in which they could do this and succeed?
So much of this stuff just sounds like infeasible conspiracy theories. If, hypothetically, Meta did do such a thing (somehow, still not clear how or frankly why?) all that it would mean is that anyone who disagreed could defederate from Meta, or would be defederated from Meta... which given half the servers in existence seem to want to defed them up front anyway, doesn't seem to make any odds.
It's all just very confusing hearing about these lurid ideas for things Meta could do with the fediverse that simply don't make a lick of sense either in terms of motivation or implementation.
Imagining Meta wants to expand into another platform isn't a conspiracy theory. For one, Meta could paste ads into more online spaces. They could also replace twitter without having to develop their own platform or pulling a Musk. Both of these would, yes, allow them to be more profitable.
Let me give a hypothetical: Meta makes their own nice, QoL-rich instance that could integrate with Facebook/Instagram. They could also add in analytics and ads and allow that to federate with other instances. They could allow other people to host their own version of this Metadon. If it gets adopted (because it "just works" or otherwise), they could cut support for the instances not running Metadon, taking a large portion of the userbase with them. They would have their own twitter clone (complete with users), they hardly spent time developing it beyond loading Mastodon with their crap, and they would have other people also hosting Metadon (and their ads) without Meta paying a dime.
If Meta does get a sizable userbase then they can absolutely leverage that to force other instances to play their game or defederate.
Meta makes their own nice, QoL-rich instance that could integrate with Facebook/Instagram.
This part could actually be enough on its own, TBH. Imagine that there's one Fediverse instance where you can interact with the rest of the Fediverse and interact with FB and IG, but it doesn't propagate stuff between the two networks (i.e. it doesn't allow people on Beehaw to see what someone on FB posts, and vice versa). Now there's a reason for everyone to migrate to Meta's instance, and a built-in way for Meta to advertise the migration to everyone in the FV. Once it sucks up enough users, it just de-federates from everything else and goes on its own way.
So they can overwhelm it, when they become the majority of the users they become in charge with the loudest voice. Then they steer it their way or make sure it dies.
Someone else just posted this explanation. TLDR is essentially, one of these giant corporations can destroy a network by joining and then later walling off their own part of it. And it's been done before.
tl;dr: Facebook and Google didn't "destroy" XMPP. XMPP was used by basically nobody before Facebook and Google picked it up, and after they dropped it again XMPP is still used by basically nobody. Its spec also doesn't include support for features that consumers expect to have in messaging software, which is part of why nobody uses it.
Because it’s what we’ve come to expect from large corporations suddenly joining the table of any FOSS project that is adjacent to their financial stakes. Coexistence is possible if they can profit from the software without assimilating it, but it also stands to reason that they will be pushing for new interoperability standards that benefit their own business model at the expense of users in some way.
The lowest hanging fruit would be something that allows them to associate Fediverse accounts with users whose marketing data already exists in their database, or providing a service to third parties that helps them tie their own databases back to Fediverse users. This would require some sort of hook that encourages the users to either associate their Fediverse accounts to an existing Meta service, or otherwise volunteer common PII such as email address that can be cross referenced. Maybe some kind of tracking cookie that accomplishes the same.
Keep in mind that this is just an example, it is not necessarily the exact angle they are pursuing. I’m not in the automatically defederate camp, but a healthy amount of skepticism is definitely warranted.
If fediverse admins come back to us saying that they have figured out a safe way to federate with Meta, then we will know that Meta got to them (financially). Maybe that's why they want an off the record meeting?
Dealing with an enormous corporation with an extensive track record of exploiting similar scenarios and acting on bad faith...
Yeah, it's pretty rational to believe this time will also be reflective of their general modus operandi.
You've mounted an emphatic defense of Facebook based almost exclusively on the fact people in this thread don't know exactly the technical details of what fuckery they'll be up to this time. I'm left wondering if you have any understanding of people, history, or... context as a concept.
You have provided a good sounding board for others to illustrate just what the risks involved are. So, thank you for that.
Yeah, I'm "defending" Facebook by pointing out that people keep letting 2 + 2 = 57845789478945 and that many of the "risks" being talked about are simply imaginary, technically impossible and/or do not require Meta to start an instance to materialise.
The technical details rather matter when people are coming up with random nonsense and/or don't actually seem to understand the nature of the platform they're coming to the defence of.
I don't trust Meta. I don't like Meta. That doesn't mean I need to also accept as true random confabulations about people being paid off and data being scraped for ends that don't make any sense. There's been a whole heap of heat around this subject and basically no light.
The second part of your comment doesn't answer my question, nor would "they want our data!!!" explain why Meta would want or need to create an instance in order to get it, or how the "data" (what data? Your posts? The ones that ActivityPub syndicates to hundreds of other servers automatically? Do you know exactly which servers your posts are on at the moment?) of other users on other fedi instances could somehow be "monetised" by them.
OK, I've read that link and it still doesn't really explain how exactly Meta intends to monetise other peoples' posts - "collect data from and monetise", how exactly are they going to monetise other peoples' posts on other instances, when they have no ability to e.g. serve ads to those people?
I don't think anyone is questioning your cynicism of Meta's intentions or motivations, but the nature of the Fediverse is specifically designed to make it very difficult (if not impossible) for any one party to control the entire thing. It's a question of how not if.
The worst thing I could see is something like the development of React where FB has an overwhelming advantage in sheer resources and ends up having a major influence on the direction of software trends. But that would still just be a popularity thing and would not actively stop anyone from doing their own thing. Maybe there is something in the license for ActivityPub that would let them pull a Google-vs-Oracle reverse engineering, but again that won't stop other instances or developers from ignoring them if they wanted.
It's not cynicism if the other party has a track record of behaving in an anti-competitive manner. The Fediverse became a competitor once it showed non-negligible growth.
Meta introduces convenient, cool and innovative features not originally on fediverse code
Everyone wants new features, but features are locked under propietary code.
Everyone flocks to meta’s product.
Meta is now the fediverse and the fediverse is nothing but a husk of its former self
The solution is 1: to make sure users understand that it’s a bad idea to flock to meta’s instance, and 2: to implement that feature in the fediverse if everyone likes it so much they’re willing to leave. The solution is not defederating now because of the posibbilty that they do that in the future.
But meta cannot claim all the fediverse as accesible content. Therefore making it akin to using facebook and reddit. Separate services that serve different demographics
i haven’t seen any hard confirmation, but i believe one of these mastodon admin meetings has already happened (the one attended by the universeodon admin) and an nda was involved. this would be the second meeting.
All right. Well, TBF I'd rather "sound unemployed" (whatever that means) than sound like I'm shilling for big tech corporations and their predatory practices. shrug
Signing an NDA to talk about an unreleased product is not predatory, it's standard practice for virtually any business (especially the kind inviting random people off the internet to see them). Many jobs require you to sign NDAs just to go through the interview process.
There is nothing gained by not going to the meeting with Meta, if they want to launch their Twitter clone they are more than capable of doing that regardless of whether or not this guy takes a meeting to hear them out. All he's done is learned less about what they plan on doing leaving him less capable of taking the best course of action, and if you trust him to make the right decision then that's objectively a bad thing.
stepping in a bit to say chill, this is a bit much of an accusation to make over what appears to be a pretty simple disagreement (which you've more constructively elaborated on downthread!)
Off the record doesn't mean completely secret. And it doesn't necessarily mean it will be under NDA (although it also happens sometimes). If anytime a major company is drawn to talk about a heated subject they get hammered by the news cycle and their stocks tank, or their investors get the shakes - they will stop coming to the table to discuss issues.
Off the record used to mean something in journalism. That's the "off the record" I'm talking about. If Meta has something else in mind - take issue with it then. But give them the benefit of the doubt until then. "Off the record" gets shit done in a world of red tape, woke hysteria and cancel culture.
Now, although I'm not pro MetaBook, I'd rather they come to the table, even if I think they don't do it in good faith. It means that they can be called on their bullshit, and get their response. Even if that response will not be quoted to the rest of us, or broadcast to the world to see - it's better than the current situation, where people just speculate about what Meta's public-facing, public-relations-sanitized statements actually mean.
I think Gab completely broke off from the fediverse at this point. not just from being blocked, but also not bothering to keep themselves up to date on their end as well. That being said. I wonder if Meta would be even aware of that, or if they would care if they considered inviting Gab.
But I imagine it's now likely that at least one person suggested inviting them and someone with some common sense shut that down pretty fast.
I agree with what you're saying, but remember that open source software cannot happen without individual contributions and donations. If you have some money to spare, even just $1 dollar, please consider donating it to the Lemmy developers. It's obviously not a requirement, but it helps keep the project going!
I don't think that's true. Obviously we all think like that which is why we're here, but most people are still on reddit/twitter because they don't care about any of that, they only care about the content/experience
Thanks for sharing, that article is fresh out of the oven!
Having been interested in Open Source software for a few years, I always give big companies the side-eye when they suddenly take great interest into FOSS projects.
I am not against talk and federation, but Meta needs to make clear their motivations if they want the Fediverse's trust at all.
Even if they make their intentions clear, why would we believe or trust them? What's to stop them straight up lying about their intentions? When there are investors involved, all ethics go out the window.
It's not about standards. It's about how "Meta" is going to use the data they'll collect to manipulate and advertise to you in insidious ways. They don't want to cooperate with the Fediverse, they want to control it. Those are the issues and the source of negativity.
I think they have a history of being amoral/indifferent towards the spaces they create/impact of their (lack of) moderation, and as if that wasn't enough, I also think that they are entering the fediverse at the worst possible time in terms of disdain for corporations
The FOSS community is wary due to "embrace, extend, extinguish" approach by various tech giants in the past. When a tech giant suddenly want to embrace federation while offering no details whatsoever, people are right to be wary.
The flipside is that a standard's not really open and a network founded on one isn't really resilient if certain groups or corporates arbitrarily aren't seen as "allowed" to use it, or if conversely a big corporate joining it is so toxic to the entire endeavour that it must be blocked on sight.
Chris Trottier, someone who I disagree with quite a lot and is a far bigger advocate for decentralisation as a public good than I am, is quite sanguine about P92 on those grounds.
Personally, I have no plans on my instances to submit P92 to any more stringent rules than I would with any other server blocks, that is I will give them exactly enough rope to hang themselves with.
Okay, if your community can’t survive Meta using ActivityPub, then it doesn’t deserve to exist.
I disagree with him as strongly as possible. That view is to the point of abhorrent. The problem at the core is that he and everybody in the "let's allow Meta in" group is that they see it as this big machine everybody should be using, while the rest of us care so much less about that than about the communities that have formed and have been slowly growing here, that are about to be strip-mined by Meta as they do EEE.
We do NOT need to wait and see, we have years of experience of Meta's modus operandi, and the communities of the Fediverse just cannot survive their invasion. And we don't want that!
Early on when Google wasn't shit and Facebook was just coming out of the startup phase both of them had chat platforms based on XMPP (the OG federating protocol). For a few glorious moments everyone could chat with anyone through the corresponding XMPP endpoints. At some point they decided they can't be arsed anymore and shut off federation on their servers. They captured enough market and siloed their users.
There's 1 million % this will happen again. It's textbook EEE.
Well done on Mastodon admins for not cooperating with Facebook's strong arming tactics. Facebook's server will evolve into another walled garden, Mastodon federating with them will only help them.
Meta is not going to "use" this technology, they want to own it. And you can be certain they will try their best to build a walled garden with a Facebook login, so the masses pick their form of fediverse rather than the one not controlled by big tech.
Peoples negativity comes from experience with these corporations. You are probably pretty young if you don't see how bad they are.
the masses pick their form of fediverse rather than the one not controlled by big tech.
You say this as if the masses are currently interested in fediverse in general, and give a shit about whether it's controlled by big tech or not.
Fact is most people don't know about fedi and a great deal of those who do don't care, and the only chance you'll get them anywhere near a fediverse service if someone (be that Meta, or anyone else) wraps it up in a little bow for them and delivers it to them.
I dunno... this has rings of Libra (now Diem?) to it. Given engagement on Meta is down, it feels more like a playbook to tap into the zeitgeist and capture the shift in traffic.
Add comment