Look, it's not that I don't get the enthusiasm about #P92/#Barcelona —that's not the reason why I warn against federating with it <https://sociale.network/@oblomov/110397020867065165>. I do get it. There is something elating, validating, empowering even, when some{one,thing} Big & Famous (seems to) adopts “underdog” tech. I know because I've been there, both as a user and as a developer. But because of that, and for having been burned already not once, not twice, but three times at least, I know what to look out for.
Yet another question people are asking me: "How can I, a common person, help hasten the demise of #Meta through #ActivityPub?"
Again, I want to re-emphasize this. #Fediblock is not an all-purpose tool. It's useful as a hammer. But in this scenario, we don't just need a hammer. We need drills, pliers, saws, and blowtorches.
That said, we must protect communities that choose to defederate from Meta. Which means that if those servers don't want to receive messages from any Meta-owned services, we must not only be respectful of that, we should make damn sure that those servers are quarantined from Meta. So much of the success of fighting Meta will require safe spaces from Meta.
The next thing we need is lots and lots of nodes. Currently, we only have ~25,000 nodes on the Fediverse but we need more. Preferably, these nodes should be small, agile, and well-moderated. If you have the finances and/or skill to run a node, it's important that you do so. To compete with Meta, we need to build scale -- and the easiest way to build scale is by adding more nodes to the Fediverse.
What will also be key is lobby servers. These will be servers specifically set up for migrants from Meta-owned services to help onboard them towards the rest of the Fediverse. To run such a lobby server, they need to be welcoming, moderated well, and free of the elitists and gatekeepers that poison so much of the Fediverse currently.
How to get people from Meta to try out the rest of the Fediverse? We need people willing to be ambassadors on #P92 who are ready and willing to evangelize the rest of the Fediverse. Folks like @tchambers are very good at this on Twitter, and I have no doubt that we can do the same with P92. Except this time we'll have the benefit of federation already happening 😉
Now if there's one thing I've learned about the growth of the Fediverse it's that bad corporate decisions pay dividends. We've already experienced waves of migration from Tumblr, Twitter, and Reddit. And I have no doubt that it's only a matter of time before Meta makes another corporate mistake -- as they tend to do.
In which case, we need to strike fast. When another Cambridge Analytica happens, we need to remind everyone on Meta about the lobby servers that are on standby, and ready to take them on. Unlike previous migrations, let's not be unprepared for this. Let's be especially prepared since Meta plans to join the Fediverse.
Finally, we need more devs. Specifically, we need devs willing to build innovative server and client software that takes aim at Meta. And to do that, we need to support the devs that currently exist -- show evergreen devs pondering whether they should invest here that we, as a community, are appreciative of our current devs.
If you like #Mastodon, #Calckey, #Kbin, #Friendica, etc., it's important that you open up your hearts as well as your wallets and fund the next stage of Fediverse development.
This will take a lot of work. But if you want to fight Meta, challenge their dominance of social media, this is what must be done.
Personally, I'm hyped about the future of the Fediverse -- regardless of whether Meta eventually lives to tell the tale.
People are asking me what I think about #Meta joining the Fediverse. To review what I've said elsewhere, it's important to acknowledge five important realities:
Meta can use ActivityPub, and nothing can be done about it. Fediblock doesn't prevent Meta from using ActivityPub because ActivityPub is an open protocol.
A mass Fediblock (Gab style) is not happening. The big servers aren't doing it. And if the big servers aren't doing it, the medium and little servers don't have the power to enforce a mass Fediblock.
The majority of people on the Fediverse don't care -- and many of them even want to connect with Meta. I know, this might surprise you. But based on my observations, most people won't be leaving mastodon.social because it federates with Meta.
Even if the majority of Fediverse servers blocked Meta, that would still mean that certain unsavoury servers (which shall be unnamed) will likely connect with Meta -- and I certainly don't want those servers to be the face of the Fediverse for people who use #P92
Even if Meta pulled a Truth Social and didn't connect to the Fediverse, that does not prevent them from sucking up all that data from ActivityPub -- seeing how that data is, in fact, public.
Am I saying there's no value in blocking Meta? Not at all. Yes, block them if you don't want to send and receive messages to P92. Will that prevent Meta from seeing your messages? As I said, no, not at all. But at least that's data you haven't directly given to Meta (unless you're allowing RSS on your server). And it will also mean you won't receive messages from Meta -- if that's your purpose, blocking is good.
Now I've come to believe that when Meta joins the Fediverse, the Fediverse will largely be divided into three factions:
Faction 1: Servers that federate with Meta
Faction 2: Servers that don't federated with Meta, but federate with servers that federate with Meta
Faction 3: Servers that don't federate with Meta, and don't federate with any server that federates with Meta
Factions 1 and 2 will probably go on their merry way. It's Faction 3 that I believe will die because it's ultimately unfeasible.
"But Chris!" some might say, "There's that pact!"
Unless all those servers in that pact are only federating via white labeled servers who've signed that pact, the pact is useless. Such white labeling would mean that every server that federates must be manually reviewed. And it means that every new server that joins the Fediverse will be federated with Faction 1 and Faction 2 before they're federated with Faction 3.
Which ultimately means that Faction 3 gets tinier and tinier, especially as churn occurs, and those users don't get replaced by newcomers.
In the end, what will federation via white label achieve? Not a whole lot, except make certain people believe they have done something substantial to fight Meta when they haven't.
At a certain point, we have to accept reality: Meta will use ActivityPub, and most people using the Fediverse will talk to them.
So am I waving the white flag?
Not at all. What's important to acknowledge here is that it's not we, the Fediverse, who have conceded. It's Meta.
It's Meta who have given up ownership of their own corporate-owned network effect in order to join the Fediverse.
Despite this concession from Meta, I'm not happy about them joining the Fediverse.
However, there's another consideration: for people who use Meta. it's an incremental improvement over what they had before -- which was no federation. Again, less worse is better than worse. If the world is slightly better -- even if it's not ideal -- it's still better.
Do I want people to use Meta-owned social networks? Not at all.
Here's where I disagree with 99% of people panicking about Meta: I believe ActivityPub will ultimately be Meta's own undoing.
"Meta is talking to celebrities like Oprah and the Dalai Lama about being early users. ‘We’ve been hearing from creators and public figures who are interested in having a platform that is sanely run,’ a top exec told employees."
This is how you do marketing, #Fediverse take notice. We need to get our act together, otherwise Meta will be the default marketing department for the Fediverse, and that would be ... suboptimal.
One of the "defederate with Threads" arguments being advanced is that "Threads is about harvesting user's data"
Which, ok, sure - Threads is about harvesting Threads users data, that part I get.
What part of this setup, though, allows Threads to harvest other people's data (ie, the fediverse in general), in a way that can be genuinely blocked by defederating with them?
We, the moderation and administration of tech.lgbt, are signing the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact in fellowship with our peer communities. (https://vantaa.black/pact)
There is over a decade of precedent that Facebook will not have users' best interests as their guiding principle but rather profit margins, if it joins the Fediverse.
We at tech.lgbt have long held the belief that corporation owned instances are a threat to the core of the Fediverse: freedom for users to be themselves and to be a part of their communities. The 2010s saw the loss of online freedom when the majority of the Web was consolidated into a few destinations, and Facebook entering here could lead us back to centralization. Furthermore, NDAs for server admins will constrain our sovereignty online by binding us legally from disrupting their business.
We are not products. We are people, and we do not welcome Facebook in this space.
So, open message: if you're from #Meta and you are working on this #P92 service, you should contact the #W3C#SocialCG to work on compatibility with #ActivityPub.
We're excited about your project and we're here to help.
Discussing the threat posed by Meta #P92/#Barcelona joining the #Fediverse with some tech enthusiasts feels more and more like debating #ClimateChange with a denier.
«Look at all the data indicating that this will be a disaster. It has even happened twice already!»
Responses: «It won't happen this time» «It won't be that bad» «It's actually good if that happens» and «we can't do anything about it anyway»
There is one legitimate reason to have attended the meeting of fediverse admins with Facebook/Meta and that’s if your goal was to leak the contents.
(We’re waiting.)
Personally, I don’t see how I can trust any fediverse admin either stupid enough or malleable enough to sign an NDA with Facebook/Meta.
No one made you sign an NDA with a surveillance capitalist that this space stands in diametric opposition to. You did that to yourselves. Don’t be surprised if there are consequences.
It has become known you are reaching out to members of our community to hold secret meetings (1), thereby roping them into a conspiracy of silence. This is not how we do things. This is an open social media network. If you have something to say, create an account and post it to all of us.
Asking you to stop this divisive tactic, and release everyone from any and all legal covenants pertaining to #P92 and the #Fediverse.
Why would Meta implement ActivityPub? 1½ reasons are compelling, another frequently mentioned one is not.
Blogged yesterday. So far, a bunch of nodding, no real disagreements. Still want your thoughts, particularly if you disagree or have something to add I missed.
Tech Press don’t understand the #Fediverse, so how can they understand its growth?
To hear them talk, most of them believe that #Mastodon and the Fediverse are one and the the same. Some of them go so far as to call the Fediverse the “Mastodon network”.
Which means that they don’t have a clue about what the Fediverse entails, nor how it has grown.
Case in point: between Jan-May 2023, #Misskey and its forks grew by 300,000 accounts. No one in the Tech Press reported this.
Okay, perhaps they didn’t know because the bulk of growth happened in Japan. But still, this is fairly important to know since Misskey is now responsible for generating the bulk of Fediverse content. Even so, Tech Press think the Fediverse is about Mastodon.
And now, #Lemmy and #Kbin are experiencing lots of growth, with both collectively gaining 100,000 users in a week. This is quite a noteworthy event since the #RedditMigration is part and parcel of dissension on #Reddit – a pretty major Big Social platform.
Does the Tech Media report on this? Nope. But again, that’s because they don’t understand the Fediverse nor what it entails.
Then Meta signal that a new project they’re making, #P92 (a.k.a., #Barcelona), will be joining the Fediverse. There’s even screenshots that show this app interacting with remote Fediverse servers.
But instead of reporting about how this will affect the existing Fediverse, press such as the #BBC say this is an altogether different social network than Mastodon.
That’s right! Tech Press don’t even realize P92 will be joining the Fediverse – a social network that already exists!
Is this all ridiculous? Yes.
But this is why we have to be forthright about what the Fediverse is, what it entails, and why it all matters.
No, Mark Zuckerberg won't meet you in the lobby Chris Trottier.
Recently one of the fediverse's most ardent proponents of collaboration with Meta produced a long thread in which he details his argument for embracing the P92 gambit with open arms. This post is a response.
If you're wondering why he is not tagged or addressed directly in his thread, that's because Chris is want to block anyone who offers up even the most polite of substantive counterpoints. We'll just toodle along over here thanks. The intent is not actually to debate him, but to provide food for thought to those who might have been persuaded by his relentless advocacy to federate.
Trottier seems to believe that ActivityPub possesses extraordinary powers: "ActivityPub means that whatever of Meta’s userbase that’s exposed to federation will diversify into other platforms […] This diversification reduces the dependence of users on a single platform, giving them more choices and potentially drawing them away from Meta."
But he never acknowledges that Meta platforms comprise an algorithmically-governed censorship regime which repress information of many kinds - for example, the #joinpixelfed hashtag, which was banned on Instagram along with the Pixelfed account itself. Why would this entity allow pied pipers of the fediverse to frolic freely on P92 and evangelize escape from its enclosure?
For that matter, why does he think that would work at all? The userbase of Instagram will be prompted to join Threads. That means something of the existing network effect of that longstanding service will be transplanted in; and rest assured, there will be no account migration functionality provided.
In fact, the number of teen-dream travel-snap influencers who will, upon exposure to a single post by Chris Trottier on the magic of W3C protocol development, leap to wrench themselves away from the highly addictive and even financially-incentivized dependency on their established social graph and plunge themselves into the X11-Wayland religious war waged among the beloved catgirls of the fediverse is statistically very close to zero.
There is also an unsettling absence of agency in Chris's characterization of the lost souls of Meta, as if they're just sheep waiting for the good shepherds of decentralization to lead them to greener pastures. Instagram account holders are free to sign up for a fediverse account right now, and many have already done so - and by the way, the reverse flow is also quite possible for anyone here who wishes to connect to friends and family on Meta networks.
To open this "revelatory" "Pandora's Box" (his words) of the ActivityPub Rapture, Trottier proposes, with great bloviation, something called "lobby servers". As he describes: "Lobby servers can bridge communities. They act as intermediaries that connect different social media platforms, including Meta-owned ones, with non-Meta platforms. […] By federating with Meta, lobby servers can pull content from Meta’s network and redistribute it to other federated platforms. This syndication allows users on non-Meta platforms to access and engage with Meta users’ content, thereby exposing them to different perspectives and encouraging cross-platform interactions…"
The flowery language continues on, but he is not actually proposing some novel new technical development. There is nothing described which is not already part and parcel of ActivityPub federation. The "lobby server" is simply a rebrand of "an instance federating with Meta".
This Hotel California doublespeak is indicative of the most problematic aspects of the communications of pro-Meta luminaries. In a ploy more typical of the contemporary reactionary right, the values and intentions of the opposing fediverse opinions on Meta are inverted. Trottier's post begins: "Federation with Meta actually hurts Meta."
He continues, referencing the FediPact community: "… it’s not everyone’s objective to fight Meta, and there should be spaces where fighting Meta isn’t top of mind. Not everyone wants to be part and parcel of a fight, and that’s okay." So, in this new upside-down reality, the anticapitalists trying to save at least part of the fediverse from colonization by one of the most destructive corporations in the world "don't want to fight Meta"; the true revolutionaries are those eager to collaborate with that corporation.
The Orwellian trolling degenerates from there. He claims that turning away from P92 - a single vertical silo which may comprise tens or even hundreds of millions of users - will paradoxically harm decentralization, because all those little servers federated with each other somehow result in "fragmentation" instead. And the anarchists and marginalized communities in the FediPact? They're actually pro-police authoritarians! "To enforce total defederation will require whitelisting, and policing of that whitelist." The term "whitelist" is repeated over and over in this paragraph, which is a subtle dig in the direction of a general and very nasty propensity among pro-Zuck advocates to associate the FediPact with the "HOA" and the absence of diversity.
On the whole, the most visible proponents for Meta collaboration have been big-instance admins who have done neither themselves or their cause any good over the last couple of weeks. Chris Trottier is something of an exception. We have repeatedly noted people explaining that they were on the fence over the Meta issue, until convinced by Trottier's arguments. He may fancy himself as fighting Meta, but by relentlessly arguing in favor of federating with them, he is actually serving as their most useful and effective asset in the fediverse.
About Meta on the Fediverse :facebook::geodesic::
I have a lot of concerns about Meta coming soon to the Fediverse.
I fear what this means for the exchange of information that will inevitably happen between us and them.
What it means legally,
what it means technically,
but mostly what it means ethically.
I also fear for the culture we have developed here.
I have deleted my Facebook account 5 years ago and never regretted it. I do not have any other accounts with Meta. For many reasons, I intend to stay away from this unethical corporation as much as I can.
I do not know what my instance intends to do about this, but personally I will block entirely any instance(s) controlled by Meta. I might also lock my account if necessary. This isn't about the people on there, this is very much about the practices of the corporation that controls it.
I sincerely hope their presence will not break the Fediverse :geodesic:
I hope we will stay strong and fight together for the better world we have started to create ✊:heart_cyber:
But I can’t help seeing the arrival of Goliath as a threat to the new world we have built...
I piss off people who pander to #Meta and believe every server on the Fediverse should federate with #P92 (a.k.a., #Threads) since, you know, notmeta.social won’t be doing that.
And I piss off the HOA of the Fediverse by suggesting we should have lobby servers that help Meta users migrate off of Meta.
But it’s fine if some people get upset. Not everyone will be happy in this situation.
Bei @digitalcourage haben wir noch nicht entschieden, ob wir Metas Fediverse-Instanz(en) aus unseren Instanzen aussperren werden. Noch funktioniert bei threads.net das Föderieren nicht. Das kann sich aber jederzeit ändern.
Wer vorbeugend ausschließen will, dass die eigenen Tröts zu Meta/Threads gelangen, kann sich mit folgender Anleitung abschotten:
About the question of "Meta forcing their moderation rules" onto the fediverse. (which would imply no NSFW). This is not an argument to defederate from them prehentively.
(this is speculation we DO NOT KNOW what meta is planning)
My advice would be: DO NOT change your moderation rules. If meta cannot block posts that are explicitly marked as NSFW that’s THEIR fault.
And if they block you, let them block you. It tells a VERY different story to the press and observers if Meta blocks half of the fediverse because of NSFW content VS Half of the fediverse blocking Meta for no apparent reasons. (I now your reasons, but the journalists don’t)
Never stop posting NSFW. That’s one of the things that make us better than scared-of-a-single-nipple-on-artistic-photography instagram.
Imagine the story from the viewpoint of instagram users: "So you mean that there is NSFW stuff out there and meta is blocking it from me? Then I can just create a mastodon account and enjoy NSFW stuff there". VS "what a bunch of unwelcoming folks blocking Threads before it even launch"
I'm honestly a bit taken aback by some of the proponents of #Threads
Not by them carrying water for #Meta mind you, that's their prerogative, more so by the way they go about it
I've seen the most strained analogies and the most contorted arguments being uttered by people that I know are too smart and too honest to utter things that are so incongruous with their own standards of intellectual honesty
#P92 is equal parts scary and exciting. What gives me hope is that while the product is dictated by the deeply untrustworthy #Meta company, it’s being developed by engineers who are amenable to the #OpenSource ethos, as evidenced by React, Docosaurus, RocksDB, PyTorch, LLaMA etc.
If you believe in the #fediverse like I do, you’ll see we have a far more compelling story for fellow techies to come along with. If we make it easy for them to do the right thing, it’s harder for Meta to do wrong.