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've really enjoyed the mastodon experience since leaving #twitter 6 months ago. My use of the platform is far more satisfying with a lack of ads or marketing posts, positive interactions with real humans, and much less pointless doomscrolling on my part.
With that in mind and recent news around #Meta 's #P92 initiative, it was important enough for me to become a #Patreon supporter to preserve the #fediverse for myself and others.
It seems that Meta plans to allow import of not only user accounts but their content, as well. That’s huge. (If that somehow includes interactions for posts—replies, boosts, etc.—it will be monumental).
The current half-assed account migration feature is a liability. Some people don’t mind leaving all their content and interactions behind when they switch servers; many do mind. Maybe now would be a good time to get serious about real account portability?
Ok, this makes sense. Looks like the idea behind #P92 is for #Meta to make instances revenue-sharing vassals. "If your instance provides good content and does what we say, we'll give you an opportunity for ad revenue."
Some instances join, make pretty good money, are treated well by Meta, they tell others about it.
More instances join.
Many other instances defederate from those.
Major competition to see if joiners gain majority.
5a. If joiners don't gain majority, #P92 limps along for a little while, then closes.
5b. If joiners gain majority, #Meta opens up revenue sharing to most instances.
6b. Lots of instances are created by content farmers who harvest and repost content.
This thread by @vantablack is exactly what I was talking about with my thread. Meta rumored to bribe large instance admins. They will throw money at the Fediverse, and they will win, because C.R.E.A.M.
All this conversation about #Meta on #Fedi feels like the worst parts of geek culture. So technical, without understanding context or what strikes can actually do. My thoughts:
Meta will make a great app for Fedi because it has more money to throw at the task. People will start using that because it's better. It will have QTs and an algorithm. People they want to follow will be there.
Meta will data collect not just public content, but also statistics like how long your eyes stay on certain text. What you hover over, what you toot and erase, what you search for. None of this is available to them now.
Regular people won't care because they have busy lives and just want something that works. Geeks won't care because we can use alternative clients (for now). After a few years, #meta's #p92 will introduce features unavailable on alternative clients.
People will be divided between interoperability with #Meta and alternative clients. They will like the no ads stuff on #Masto, but at first the ads on #P92 will be promoted posts and will actually be useful. It will be reliable. Small servers on #Mastodon will collapse because of rapid growth, difficulty in moderation, attacks by right-wing trolls. People will want reliability and move to the meta thing, because it's just easier.
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.
In fact, at its core, any protocol – no matter how inefficient – that assumes hierarchy where one group is ruled over by another inherently favours centralisation. And Big Tech can always throw money at the problem as well as “optimise” protocols to improve economies of scale.
The alternative is #SmallWeb/p2p, where every node is equal.
@kev So, I guess it isn't just confirmed that #P92 (#Meta's Threads service, which is their #Twitter competitor) is coming, but that some form of ActivityPub support is coming and it seems they at least intend to connect fully with #Mastodon
The "Doomed" Fediverse: How Meta's Wisdom and Zuckerberg's BJJ Spells its Inevitable Failure
Well, ladies and gentlemen, brace yourselves for the impending apocalypse because the Fediverse is doomed! Why? Because Meta, the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-wise, and all-powerful entity formerly known as Facebook, is here to crush it just like it did to XMPP. And if that wasn't convincing enough, hold your breath, because Mark Zuckerberg knows Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (BJJ). Now, if that isn't the final nail in the Fediverse's coffin, what is?
1. Meta: The Ultimate Deity:
Meta, with its infinite wisdom, is like a deity that will decide the fate of the internet. Who needs decentralized platforms, free speech, or user privacy when we can have one big centralized entity calling all the shots? Clearly, we should bow down and surrender our freedom, autonomy, and individuality to Meta. They will decide what content we see, what information we can access, and who we can connect with. Hallelujah!
2. XMPP: The Case of Past Failure:
Remember XMPP? That pesky decentralized messaging protocol that refused to succumb to Meta's dominance? Well, let's not dwell on the fact that it's still in use today. It's a perfect example of how Meta crushed a decentralized technology with its iron fist. So clearly, the same fate awaits the Fediverse. Who needs a diverse ecosystem of interconnected social networks when we can have one massive walled garden controlled by Meta? Diversity is overrated, right?
3. Mark Zuckerberg's BJJ Skills:
Ah, the pièce de résistance: Mark Zuckerberg's BJJ skills. Because clearly, the ability to execute a rear-naked choke or an armbar has a direct correlation to the success or failure of online platforms. Forget about innovative ideas, competent teams, or adapting to changing user needs. It's all about grappling skills! If Zuckerberg can choke out the competition on the mats, he can surely do the same in the digital realm. Fediverse, watch out!
There you have it, folks. The Fediverse, with its commitment to decentralization, privacy, and user control, is undoubtedly doomed to fail, just like XMPP, because Meta is the ultimate power and Mark Zuckerberg knows BJJ. The all-knowing, all-seeing, all-wise Meta will bring order to the chaotic realm of social media and ensure we all live in harmony under its watchful gaze. So, let's raise a glass and toast to the impending demise of the Fediverse. After all, who needs choice, diversity, or freedom when Meta is here to guide us? Cheers!
Ideally I’d say I (and IMO the average user) might want to be in the middle group aka "I want to connect with my friends and family but I don’t want trolls in my replies."
But I don’t mind making an alt-account in the first group, I already have an Instagram account it cannot be worse than being on the actual platform. What’s great is that the second part of our handle is a literal advertisement. I’ll interact the hell out of meta users and show off my cool handle (bonus points if I can find a very funny domain name).
I will also subscribe to the actual Threads with my actual instagram account as soon as I can. Why? Not to create content for meta, but because I like trying new stuff, being an early users and reporting back here. The same I do for Bluesky.
Of course that doesn’t mean that I support Meta. Meta is an adversary to the community-led fediverse. There is a choice to make between safety and connectivity with friends, there are multiple strategy to get people off meta and onto the fediverse. There are a lot of in-fighting here and disagreements.
But the simple truth is that no one likes meta, they have no ally here.
Many of those I see arguing against defed'ing #P92 argue that staying federated will allow people to be attracted away from the #Meta-based solution onto the rest of the #Fediverse.
...but IIRC I've only seen a few people mention that it's already possible for people to be attracted away without needing to federate with them at all. Everybody here who wants to help people leave P92, just create accounts there and link them to #Fedi servers, just like with :birdsite: :thonking:
...after all, #P92 / #Threads is a new app, and apparently people will have to sign up for it separately. Why not just get a few #Fedi stalwarts on there and tell people "hey, want to remove the ads without a premium subscription?"
They've just signed up for a new account anyway, if they don't like it, they might be tempted to try a second, right? 🤷
People who build spaces distanced from Meta.
People & spaces who interface cautiously/casually with various controls.
Frontline people & spaces who go in and entice people out of the corporate silos.
All 3 are necessary, needed and should support each other. Fediverse account flexibility means one can be in several places as needed.
It's what the #Fediverse requires. A spectrum of responses, each important in it's own way.
The more I'm trying to understand the call to block #Meta's #P92#Threads, the less sense I think it makes. Let's see some of the arguments:
"Meta is evil": Yes they are. Don't sign up to their new service. I don't think all of their users are evil though. I still have my facebook account.
"There are privacy concerns". Yes there are - for their users, not ours. For us, as admins of communities that are willingly federated, what are the privacy concerns? Most of the stuff we do is public anyway. We're federated to hundreds/thousands of servers. Do we know who owns each of them, and what they do with whatever data they get from us? If you think there are privacy dangers from federating with servers that you don't know what they do with their data, then we should defederate from everyone we're not 100% sure about - so basically from everyone. Saying that federating with a Meta server is dangerous is like saying that an open federation was a bad idea all along.
"We have to protect our users". From what? I get defederating from nazi servers, and then we are actually protecting users. If Meta doesn't completely screw up moderation, I don't think we can seriously claim that interaction with Meta users in general will be abusive and harmful. If your users don't want any interaction with Meta users, they can block them at user level.
"We have to protect the Fediverse". From what? From being an open space for communication? From not being a walled garden? By pushing people to actually use Meta's platform, if they want to communicate with other Meta users? Do you realize that the biggest obstacle for mass adoption is that most users need social media to communicate with their friends, and if they can't do it from fedi, then they'll stick with Twitter or Meta? And if you don't want "mass adoption", then what are you even doing using an open protocol? Just set up a defederated instance or forum. I use an open protocol because I want users of the platform I provide to be able to communicate with more people on other platforms. I don't have to agree with the other platforms on everything - if we did, we'd just make one platform instead of thousands of different ones. I'll use fediblock to protect users from abuse and harassment, not from communicating with whoever decides to use a "free" platform (and "pay" by viewing ads and giving up their privacy). I think they're getting ripped off, but hey, it's their choice. It's definitely not the same as being a nazi.
"We have to stop Meta's plans". Sorry to break it to you buddy, but you can't do that by blocking them. ActivityPub is an open protocol and they have every right to use it. They will attract users for a number of reasons: They'll have celebrities on board, they have the money to provide a smooth service, and they can provide communication with their already enormous userbase on Facebook and Instagram - and with the fedi servers that will choose to federate with them. If you think that the current active fedi userbase of a few million people worldwide is such a selling point for Meta... it's not. It's not what will convince people to sign up. If someone wants access to the fedi userbase, they can already do that by just signing up on a Mastodon, Calckey etc server.
I'm all for blocking the new platform if it causes actual practical problems for us. But declaring you'll block them anyway because you don't like Meta (I don't like them either)... to be honest, this kinda feels like an admin power trip to me. It could be even perceived as an asshole move to your own users. You're not "protecting" them from Meta. If they want to be protected from Meta, they can just not sign up to Meta. If they don't want any communication with Meta users, they can block them on a user level.
I'll be discouraging anyone from using Meta's services, as I already do. But forbidding fedi users to interact with Meta users is not the same thing.
At least a part of the this whole debate about #Meta and the #Fediverse seems to boil down to the most persistent argument on #Mastodon: People saying, well I have all the connections I want here, so why are you complaining about missing people or communities?
Meta is so so many people that could get to know and embrace the #Fediverse like many did after the #TwitterTakeover.
@aral@keywan
I understand your point. But I think, Meta is not only the wolf but also all the people, that don't know about the #Fediverse and could see for themselves, what it's about. Maybe this is the way, to get more people here (in the End by leaving #P92).
Of course, there is danger for the protocols, but you can't do much anyway. The more the #Fediverse grows, the bigger the interest.
@alastair87@feditips I think that's a reasonable comparison, and deliverability of email from personal mailservers has been severely affected. What I don't see yet is what problem #P92 is trying to solve the way Gmail solved full inboxes and spam filtering.