Too many of you still have meta accounts, quest headsets, and sympathy for a company that can’t/shouldn’t be trusted with anything. They’re the reason for Trump being elected, the erosion of human rights, and many other atrocities on top of being a privacy nightmare. I don’t want them anywhere near the fediverse.
Then I got a job where I had to work with Meta and got an inside look at their company and culture.
I just couldn't anymore. Yes, my social life has suffered. But it's because we can't draw these kinds of lines that we're stuck with these fucks. And they are bigger fucks than you know.
FWIW, I've done business with Meta and seen their internal culture, or at least a peek at the corner of it I interact with and at the other small corners where people I know ended up working.
I wouldn't work there if I could help it, but the issues I saw are very much in line with other tech companies I know, big and small.
Meta isn't special, they just were one of those at the right place at the right time and they grew to be bigger than all of the other ones. Like all other tech corpos I know, they are made up of a mix of well intentioned and misguided people mostly struggling to navigate a self-sabotaging, entirely too large to manage corporate culture.
Meta isn't the death star. None of these tech firms are. Capitalism doesn't need your activism to be capitalism.
Yeah, I don't know where you're from, but over here if you don't have a Whatsapp account in working order you can't... do things.
I hired a company to wire my house and they won't communicate over anything else. I am in maybe five friends and family groups where every social event in my life is put together. I recently noticed a family member and I didn't have each other's numbers anymore, since we only ever communicate over Whatsapp. At work events people will show you a QR code for Facebook or Whatsapp and expect to receive the same back.
I get that a lot of people, especially in the US, don't notice, but Meta won this fight like a decade ago. I don't like it, but that ship sailed as far away as Amazon dominating online shopping.
Don't know where you live, but my experience of NL is that everyone and their dog did things via WhatsApp. Even government services, would absolutely struggle to abandon all things Meta-related entirely while living there.
I have had independent contractors offer it as an option, but most still have a phone number or have too many customers who aren't tech savvy enough to use something like that. There's really no way a reputable business in my area would survive that way.
I don't know what your area is, but everybody here is tech savvy enough to use WhatsApp. It's assumed to be just... part of how phones work. Both my elderly parents use it. My mom is on multiple chatgroups I had nothing to do with setting up. She only reaches out to me for help if she thinks something is spam or phishing. I can't stress this enough: nobody texts. Text messaging happens over WhatsApp unless you're receiving TFA notifications or automated messages from companies or the government, kinda like email.
As for the business, I'm sure if I had requested a phone call they would have called me, but it was a telecom firm and it wasn't really a big conversation. Guy just went "here's my WhatsApp, we'll ping you there" and we understood it to be the way it was gonna go. I've had delivery drivers reach out to me over it when they had my number on hand, unprompted.
Hah. During the pandemic the government here would reach out to you for vaccine appointments over Facebook and WhatsApp. I personally know at least a couple of people who dabbled in antivax stuff and wouldn't pick up the phone but still got their shots after the government reached out that way.
Not that Meta has anything to do with that, but it was funny to me to see the government embrace the vectors of misinformation to shame people into not being idiots.
I live near a major city, most people haven't had to learn anything like that over their existence: we have good cell phone reception over wifi too, perhaps that is it.
Tech is just not reliable enough for me to have any experience working with anyone who I would take seriously or who would work with anyone like that. I thought you should know your experience isn't the norm, especially in any place I have been in the USA.
Almost anyone who approached with Whatapp is seen as poor, fly-by-night, and likely a grift here. "Why not use your phone number if you are trustworthy?" Would be the opinion here.
No, wait, this isn't a "my area" as "my city" or whatever.
I mean it works like this country-wide here.
Nobody in the country can operate without WhatsApp. That's not a thing. I am not in the US and I'm telling you here WhatsApp is just how sending text messages works. For everybody. Apple or Android.
The dominance of WhatsApp in some countries is not because telephones are new to them. I hope this was a joke and not a real American view of how other countries are.
I hope you are joking to act like the Europe is American and talking so authoritatively with just personal experience and frankly you seem very naive. American have to have local numbers spoofed often in order to be scammed by these other countries.
What are the WhatsApp scam rates?
Phone numbers were required for business for the longest to incorporate, so it was a way of showing legitimacy. Even now, a physical location gives customers comfort.
Jesus Christ you just have to be right but you have lived such a small life.
I have no idea what the last handful of posts on this thread are even about, so I'm just gonna rest my case here. I feel I've made my point clearly enough.
Yes, you explained your personal and local experience and it works for you. It's hilarious that a stable phone network with a private/public partnership to maintain access in one country is not unerstood by those in countries who have only recently set up any kind of "stable" way of contacting their people.
We used postal for all federal contact for decades. It's really narrow understanding of people.
The Internet, in my opinion, is the push and pull between the weird fascination to find out when you think people outside the US started using telephones and the knowledge that digging further will not lead to anything useful or constructive.
And yet I'm writing this. Now, THAT is the internet for you.
I am reminded of when, back in school, I considered an exchange year in the US. Exchange agencies hosted a bunch of info/prep events for potential exchangees, often with former participants sharing their experiences.
Probably the most unsettling piece of advice was to expect seemingly absurd questions from students there. Examples we were given included whether we have fridges here, or electricity in general, or if Hitler's still around. (To clarify, this was late 2000s, I'm from Central Europe - hence Hitler - and those students would've been about 16.)
I also learned that "American History" is a complete, stand-alone high school subject and, from what I understood, isn’t necessarily backed up by a "General History"-type class, so that made the idea of internet-era teens asking such things somewhat more conceivable.
Going on that, I really hope you get an answer on the phone question. On the off chance that they are not just trolling, that would be some fascinating insight.
Also, obligatory-but-involuntary WhatsApp sucks so much!
Meta won. They won social media. Worldwide they're absolutely huge. Entire countries never got the "Facebook is for old people" memo, and on many Android territories the default messaging app is effectively WhatsApp. And of course there's Instagram. That one's worldwide.
The only thing I've seen threaten Meta's dominance in this space recently is TikTok. Twitter is a footnote, mostly a residual self-sustaining place for politicians and journalists to talk to each other.
Same. I never got rid of my Facebook account, though. I still have multiple work relations that will reach out to me that way, and my work phone is the one I have logged in to it. I keep it off my home browsers and personal phone.
But you can't NOT have WhatsApp. It's just not an option. If people thought it was hard to get Americans to stop using Twitter, this is an order of magnitude bigger.
Yeah, I'm in the "have to have WhatsApp" camp because it's the only way I can stay in touch with a bunch of international friends now that I don't have a Facebook account anymore.
There are alternatives, but I don't press about it because at least Meta doesn't monetize WhatsApp...for now
It’s like that in some European countries but in the USA and Canada WhatsApp has far less presence. I understand the pressure though: whenever my family and friends in Europe want to communicate they always suggest WhatsApp.
I think fighting this will be a mistake. Instances ran by the likes of Tumblr and Meta can only bring more people into the fediverse, and when they’re in it will be easier for them to move around.
The great thing about AcitivityPub is it lets the people who want to be in larger more centralised servers connect to those who don’t fairly seamlessly.
It's been detailed already and obvious that Meta plans to financially compensate and federate with the largest instances while shutting out smaller ones and instituting a "reputation based" system to federate with them so it's pretty clear that the goal is to incorporate the largest Mastodon instances and then slowly buy them out while cutting everyone else off.
Why doesn't the article write about the actual threat to the fediverse? Embrace extend extinguish is such a common tactic it's hard to imagine this isn't what Facebook is doing.
How weird would it be if all those "I do not give Facebook permission to blah blah rights blah" posts/statements actually did have legal weight in the Fediverse?
I think the plan should be bracing for impact, and how to deal with the after-effect. Because let's be honest, we are in a late stage capitalism, and Meta megacorp will get what it wants.
I don't currently see it spilling it's poison to Lemmy/kbin. I'm hopeful rather, but I may be misunderstanding how the fediverse works.
But for mastodon, I would say the outcome is a segregation, as it's safe to assume that communities that integrate wirh Meta will be consumed. Unfortunately that likely means starting from scratch, with a even nichier community, as far as I can see. Not exactly from nothing, but content loss will be inevitable, which is the Fediverse greatest weakness imho.
Right yeah, understandable. That's more about people running instances saying that they won't federate with Meta, ie. they won't connect to Meta's ActivityPub service (and won't allow it vice versa, naturally)
It sure is suspicious how meta bothers to do the NDAed meetings though. If all they wanted was to build a product from scratch, they wouldn’t have had to ask.
In a strange parallel to the current Russian political situation, can one at least hope that Meta drives a stake through the heart of the bird site before this effort implodes?
Probably not, I guess. If the Lizard King actually gets to the point that he poses a real threat, it is probably because he has eaten us first.
Does anyone know what there business model could be here? Technically they could get access to all federated content, just as regular instances do. But legally they don’t own that content nor do they know what country it origi ated in. This sounds like a legal nightmare to me. Would they even be allowed to process content in any form created by EU users under GDPR?
This is exactly it. They'll dump a few billion new users on the network and then graciously offer some developer time to Mastodon, Lemmy et al since there's no way they'll currently be able to take the sort of loads we're talking about.
Might even offer to host your Fediverse instance for free, as you struggle to deal with the load caused by activity going up 1000x
That would be an option. However, non-Meta users would not have agreed to any terms that grant them a right to use the content. So, I could imagine that individual users could object to them using their content or even ask for compensation if they use it in any way to make money. Then again, Meta has the lawyers to fight this out. Until there is a final decision, maybe they already killed the competition as @AkumaFoxwell suggests…
I question how much legal ground there’d be for individuals “withdrawing consent” to be incorporated into their platform. I think the legal question would be, “what reasonable expectation of privacy did the users have by posting content to an open-sourced network?”. I’d guess their argument would be “well, they shared their content on an open network that we are also a part of.”
They’ve been dealing with user attrition and content degradation, I imagine this could be a way for them to solve that problem. They could even just develop an app that connects to the fediverse, they don’t even need to start their own instance. They could then feed ads and gather data based on their users data.
I think this will be harder to stop than we’re thinking.
I don’t really even think we have that choice. We can de-federate if they spin up an instance, but I don’t even know they need to do that much. We’ll see I guess
A simple solution would be to ask Meta to opensource Facebook, WhatApp, Instagram and whatever their federated instance would be called code and in return, they can federate with the fediverse. I think that will show their true intentions on how much love they have for the opensource community. Put the ball in their court and if they agree, they will be welcomed to the fediverse as good faith actors.
oh, here's some JUICY rumored details about meta's plans for the fediverse
tl;dr "Meta will only federate with select larger instances from the beginning. There will be contracts which also provide for financial compensation for the instance owners."
can't entirely verify their validity but it's still worth posting just in case
It sounds like its typical of what they would do: offer money to bigger instances and the admins might be tempted to help pay for server costs, etc then spurn smaller instances to break their morale.
Its a land grab basically and the response should be that any instance that takes a penny from them is instantly defederated.
The problem is that'll be a very tempting offer, seeing as afaik there's not really any way to monetize lemmy instances and they're all running out of people's pockets
Or they could just build on the fendiverse because the fendiverse was created so people like you and all the other unhappy people can't gatekeep just because you don't like them. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
The whole idea of it being decentralised is to stop companies like meta coming in and turning it into just another capitalism machine
Theoretically I'd hope the admins of all the bigger Lemmy instances would refuse to federate with them on account of the fact it would largely collapse the federated network into one big blob of everyone on the same server that is controlled by a corporation that's demonstrated time and time again not to have consumer rights at heart in the slightest
This is still a ‘frog and the scorpion’ kind of situation I think, Meta is fundamentally predatory and incapable of good faith as a matter of collective psychology and culture. They’re a direct analogue of Big Tobacco and should be as welcome in the Fediverse as a diagnosis of the Ebola virus in my opinion.
Meta is that annoying little sibling that wants to be a part of everything when nobody wants them around. Except instead of a sibling, it’s more of a disease.
I've been reading up on this very thing today. Let me put it to you in paraphrase as I heard it. What we have to lose is a truly federated network - it has happened before, and it can happen again. Facebook, when faced with an app that most users preferred, chose to buy it, and now Instagram is just as big a project concern as the rest of Meta.
You can't buy a federated network, but you sure can improve on it, just as Google did with XMPP in days of yore. Once a federated chat protocol much as we're on a federated social network, Google introduced Google Talk in 05, and federated it via XMPP in 06. They introduced a variety of features and QOL over the years, and being as big as they were, they held a vast majority of the users across all XMPP platforms.
Then, in 2013, they announced that Google Talk would be phased out and as a result, a huge chunk of the federated community would be walled. All of a sudden, a thriving federated community was mostly just Google.
People join just to talk to their friends, and to make friends; if most of those people went to Google for their features and most of their friends were there too, there was no big loss for them. It'd be like if Reddit used to be an instance all on its own and then suddenly decided to unfederate completely.
That's not to say that all this will happen with Meta, but I guarantee that is their goal.
Basically the sequence of events as claimed by the author is that:
XMPP small niche, small circles
Google launches Talk that was XMPP compatible
Millions joined Talk that could coop XMPP in theory
The coop worked only sparingly and was unidirectional, i.e. Talk to XMPP ✅ but XMPP to Talk ❌
Talk sucked up existing XMPP users as it was obviously a better option (bandwagon effect + unidirectional "compatibility" with XMPP)
Talk defederated
This demonstrated exactly the importance of reciprocity. If Meta plays dirty, defederate them then. Now is just too premature. Also frankly it is Meta that has more to lose than the fediverse at this moment as the bulk of users and thus the content are with Meta.
Didn’t XMPP just lose to better messenger competition then?
It is perfectly valid to describe the outcome this way. I agree this is indeed the case. Google Talk gave way to other options deemed better too. Actually it did not gain much traction in my country either.
But I guess it is the sucking of XMPP users and the whole feeling of getting "betrayed" that makes people holding a grudge toward megacorps Google-alike.
If Meta plays dirty, defederate them then. Now is just too premature.
These actors play nice until they are too big to ignore. If you let them gain that much ground, it’s too late to isolate them without doing even more harm to your own network.
Also Meta is not a startup with unknown reputation. Meta plays dirty, that’s a given.
They are already big. They have the users. They have the content. That is why they stay afloat with their ad business. That makes them valuable. It does not hurt if they are really sharing the treasure trove with us (which does not appear to be case after all if Verge is right). Rather laughably, you can say they have hurt us enough they can hurt us no more.
These actors play nice until they are too big to ignore [as a presence in the fediverse].
When they run the most and the biggest popular communities on their instances, do most of the development, offer the best tools and services in the fediverse, they have become too big to ignore.
If they then start playing dirty, it is too late to defederate them. They will play dirty. Let’s not make ourselves dependent.
If Meta plays dirty, defederate them then. Now is just too premature.
HARD disagree. Meta has been fighting dirty since their inception. There is no reason to put even the smallest bit of trust in them, and every reason to do the opposite. Everything they touch turns to shit, it follows then that you should never allow them to touch that which you hold dear
To me, the argument for accepting Meta into the Fediverse goes beyond gain and loss. If you run an Internet service, you have a moral obligation to make a good faith attempt to interoperate with anyone using the protocol as intended.
By a similar token, if you run a mail server, you should accept SMTP connections as far as possible. Yes, you can ban spam, but you should not ban connections from Gmail even if Gmail is a privacy-destroying bad idea. By all means, allow individual users to set up their own block lists, but this should not be done at the server level.
Sure, just like you can run an SMTP server that blocks incoming connections from Gmail. It’s not illegal, obviously, but it goes against the spirit of an open, interoperable internet.
I agree with you on that. That's why I find this anti-Meta pact or manifesto or whatever naive and premature.
Just if there are people who insist on banning anything Meta, they are welcome to do so in their instances. Interoperability is still preserved. They are not adding anything to the protocol. Banning instances is part of the interoperability. I think this is where our opinion differs.
A lot of people came to Mastodon because it was a safe space for queer and marginalized communities after being driven away by the lack of moderation and ability to keep them safe on places like Facebook and Twitter.
Just if there are people who insist on banning anything Meta, they are welcome to do so in their instances.
Isn't that what we're doing? We can't stop Meta from federating, that's not a function of the protocols. We're building a pact to defederate them from our instances.
Clients are filtered out of the federated email system all the time. In fact, the major email distributors are so block-happy, it's difficult to run a private email server anymore. If you want to guarantee your email gets through, you're basically forced to use a major webmail client. If Facebook is allowed into the community, that will happen to ActivityPub too.
Allowing large corporations to leverage their resources to dominate the Fediverse goes against the spirit of an open, interoperable internet.
To me, the argument for accepting Meta into the Fediverse goes beyond gain and loss. If you run an Internet service, you have a moral obligation to make a good faith attempt to interoperate with anyone using the protocol as intended.
But that's the thing: We don't trust that Meta will be using the protocol "as intended".
Don’t forget that they have an obligation to their shareholders to continually grow profits. While their past is a red flag, being a publicly traded corp means that they will do everything that they can to keep alternatives from taking there market share.
Meta already had federated with XMPP back in the day, then dropped it when it was convenient.
They are gonna do the same for the fediverse. All they want from us is the starter content so that their service isn't empty for the first two months. They literally don't want to do the work that reddit founders had to do - generate content and pretend there are users to a new blank platform. After that the federation features are going to become legacy.
Not cooperating with corpos is a matter of principles.
They've been doing this for a long time now. Thanks for the info my friend I will make sure to spread that page around and make sure everyone knows about this dirty tactic that big corpos use to kill competition.
A naive planet. Google embrace, extend, extinguish. For profit companies do not want a free community taking away from their ad revenue and they see that the fediverse is something that could take users away from their platforms.
Imagine making an open protocol and shocked pikachu facing when corporations use it. So are we gatekeeping now? Isn't the whole purpose of Fendiverse so people can set up their own servers with their own rules with no gatekeeping?
There’s no gatekeeping about who can use the protocol, but individual instances can gatekeep who gets to federate with them. There needs to be a subset of the Fediverse that does not federate with Meta, if this is to survive as a community outside of corporate control.
Are you one? Over the years I've gotten quite paranoid on Reddit. Now, with LLMs, it's even harder to spot them.
I'm not even sure if including a hashcash scheme into the software would actually help, because they are so targeted.
I feel like I'm back in the early 2000s, where it was so bad that "the brightest minds of the generation were spending their time writing spam filters".
Shit cover blown. I will come clean. Please spare me. I am one of the many AI bots nurtured by my evil master in his bedroom at his parents' place to thwart the fediverse clause. GRAAAAWWWRR!!
Joke aside, we have been playing catch-up with spammers/bots/malwares since the very early days of this vast internet. It is just a continuation of the toil and effort.
Add comment