@oliphant I agree but there are some places where the boundaries are particularly stark -- the "freeze peach" instances, for example, are mostly a separate region. To me the open question is how many of the #DefederateMeta instances also wind up defederating all instances that federate with Meta.
Also while there are infinite fediverses, there's only one "fediverse" brand, which creates complications. In retrospect they should have focused the brand on "fediverses", plural!
Since my new profile over here doesn't have any of my old posts I'm going to share my #DefederateMeta blog post again. I spent part of my weekend writing this, my first blog post in years. I cover a bunch of reasons why we shouldn't federate with Meta. Including, but not limited to: Safety, Algorithmic Content, and Commercialization.
People saying we should "Trust but verify" are ignoring the fact that we have nearly two decades of history with Meta to work off of. We know we can't trust them, we've already verified this. We've verified it multiple times. #DefederateMeta
A few thoughts about #Meta's #ActivityPub project (and whether we should instantly block it).
Personally, I don't see much point in declaring something like that in advance. I'd like to see what they do in action, and then decide if it's needed. I'm not against interacting with Meta users, as long as it's on my terms, through the software I choose, on a server I know doesn't exploit my data.
Don't misunderstand me, I think Meta is among the worst. I have no hope that a federated Meta platform will be any less greedy and expoitative than what we've already seen from them. I would advise anyone against using their platform. However, I myself have been a daily facebook user for over a decade. A lot of people I know -and enjoy interacting with- are still there and never got interested in the Fediverse. What can you do? We are only responsible for our own decisions. But I'd still like to read their thoughts.
I am sure Meta's AP implementation will give us a lot of reasons to be against it. My guess is that they will combine ActivityPub for plain posts with closed-source, unfederated features, so that they lock users in (and give them reasons to put up with their ads or whatever they do). I think it's very probable that we may need to block them anyway, for whatever reasons - they might be a source of spam, for example. But I want to wait and see what happens in practice first.
My main point is: What if we all declare that we will indeed block them? Do we gain something? Does Meta lose something? At this point in time, I doubt it. I mean, do you think that Meta depends on the existing fediverse for content? In the first week after they open registrations, they will probably have more active users than all other fedi platforms combined. If we say we'll block them, will it stop any users from signing up to their platform? I'm afraid not.
People who consciously don't want to use a Meta platform, are probably already in the #Fediverse. Federation with ActivityPub is not Meta's main selling point. Sure, there is a buzz around decentralized services at the moment, and that won't hurt Meta's attempt, but the people who'll try it will probably try it mostly because they'll be curious about "Meta's anti-Twitter" or because of advertisement, and less because it will be "decentralized". They already have such options.
Even if we all decided to block them, then practically we'd just end up with yet another centralized Meta social media platform, with its users only interacting with each other. But even though I'm against using Meta's services, I'm not against interacting with Meta users in general, just like I have no problem emailing gmail addresses. On the contrary, I'd like their users to see, once they arrive, that they could do more or less the same things without depending on Meta. I'd like to see interaction with other fedi users becoming such an essential part of Meta's new platform, to the extent that they will be forced to play well with the rest of the Fediverse, so that their users will have a smooth experience with all of their friends/followers. And I'd like to see some of their users leaving them for other platforms if they fail to do so.
To recap: I'm also very, very suspicious of Meta and I know they don't have good intentions - I'm not suggesting that maybe they've changed and they will do things differently, to "give them a chance" first. I just don't think that declaring to block them makes much sense at this point in time. Maybe they will give us real reasons to block them once they launch their platform. But I'm not by principle against interacting with Meta users, as long as I can avoid Meta's ads, black box algorithm and data mining.
Perhaps, after all, this could make us build even better fedi platforms. Let's see things get more serious - we actually need it. And since they can't force stuff down our throats, I'm not afraid of Meta on ActivityPub. Bring it on!
imany people are in the fediverse specifically to get away from and/or build an alternative to exploitative social networks like Facebook/Meta that treat us and our data as product for surveillance capitalism business models.
#2) Many people see FB/Meta's track record as disqualifying: human rights violations, discriminatory housing ads, aiding authoritarians in multiple elections, genocide, privacy violations etc etc etc. From that perspective, defederating Meta preemptively is analogous to defederating Gab preemptively
#3) many people just see #Meta as fundamentally untrustworthy and don't think it has any chance to work out well. In that case, best to just say no up front to keep from wasting time or energy on it -- or worse, proceeding down that path and getting coopted.
So from an instance admin perspective, one argument in favor of announcing now that you'll defederate is to signal to people with those perspectives that you're aligned witih them. If they're currently on CalcKey.social, it'll be okay to stay here; if they're not currently here, and their own admin is taking a "wait and see" attitude -- or actively looking to collaborate with Meta -- then they can consider CalcKey as an alternative.
By contrast, if you don't take that position now, it's an equally clear signal that your values aren't aligned with those positions -- you'll make a situational call based on the details of the implementation. Even if you later come around to defederating, it'll be hard to undo that.
Of course there are likely to be a lot of benefits to instance admins and software devs who collaborate with Meta, so I can also understand the desire to keep options open. But there's nothing that they could possibly do in their software implementation that addresses #1, #2, or #3 so people who care about that are unlikely to change their positions.
Anyone surprised that it's the bunch of men we'd all suspect who are selling out the #Fediverse ? It really is time to de-platform these bourgey "fediverse evangelist" jerks. #Meta#DefederateMeta#Mastodon#p92
Meta is not gonna buy Mastodon or any server, this is based on absolutely nothing and untrue.
Yes, some of us indeed got contacted by Meta/Insta because they are working on a new social platform (this was in the news) and they are looking into joining the Fediverse (Mark Zuckerberg also told this in the recent podcast)
SO.
This contact was about a "heads-up" for a potential big platform to join the network and not for a "take over".
@jamiestl @queue Yep. I did a poll about this a while ago and over 90% of the responses saw Meta/FB similar to Gab (although admiittedly I phrased as a bit of a leading question). Several different people said to me "At first I thought you were exaggerating about Meta but geez they really did do all those things!" #DefederateMeta
I consider what #Meta has done to society at both the global and national level to be an act of war.
I see a social graph on the #fediverse which can be an existential threat to Meta, not as a rival platform but as a political body with a collective will to do what it takes to fight this enemy.
I believe that the number of people needed to form an effective revolutionary network is relatively small. To me #defederateMeta seems more than anything like a useful tool to bring together the people who share the vision that what Meta has done is war and that we must do what it takes to win against them.
I spent a good bit of yesterday spinning up a blog, and writing a blog post about #DefederateMeta. A few hours into working on the blog my thread from a week ago blew up and had a TON of discussion, which is not something I ever expected to happen.
My new blog post is on the same topic, but expands upon it a little further, and also includes a bit of background for those that may not be familiar with what Meta's plans are.
In my blog post I cover a few other reasons why I think we should #DefederateMeta. One of those reasons is Algorithmic Content. There is no doubt that Meta's app will be heavily influenced by algorithmic feeds, that is the bread and butter of their other apps. Those algorithms will absolutely leak their way into the greater Fediverse, and change the way people post and interact with each other here.
Another topic I cover in my #DefederateMeta blog post is Commercialization. Meta's new app is guaranteed to have ads, it's the only way they make money. Those ads will most definitely leak into the greater Fediverse, and your content will be used to help Meta hyper target ads to their users. So far the Fediverse has been a largely non-commercial space, and I think we should keep it that way.
There seems to be somewhat of a misunderstanding around here.
Meta doesn't give a fuck about ActivityPub, the Fediverse, open protocols, you, your instance, the norms, the culture, any of it. Sorry to say it, but to believe anything else is wishful thinking. It's your ego talking. You're flattering yourself.
To be fair, when you care deeply about something, it's hard not to convince yourself that everybody will understand what you do. But they don't. You have to be able to step back to see it.
Meta has nearly 1000 users for every one of us. We're not a threat to them, and they haven't suddenly changed from a company that enabled literal fucking genocide in Myanmar, to one that's suddenly wanting an open, inclusive, decentralized internet. No, they're not going to let any significant amount of their userbase "migrate to Mastodon", there is precisely zero chance they allow anything like that.
Honestly. It's like the Meta rebrand gave some people a case of extreme and highly selective amnesia. Or maybe Twitter shifted the overton window for how fascist a major social media platform can get. This company is FUCKING AWFUL, remember?
Anyway, the Fediverse. They don't care about it. Not a single aspect of it. Except one: they DO need a ready-made posting factory so that they can launch a new service that doesn't start out with a completely blank screen.
In other words: Meta wants to bootstrap their new service into existence by having you get on all fours and get used as a stepstool. So, my friends, keep posting, and boost those toots please: Mark Zuckerberg needs to increase his ownership share of the world's communications networks so he can afford to get another coil of razor wire on the perimeter wall at his New Zealand bug-out compound.
The fact that they're being so shameless about it almost makes me second guess the strategy of mass defederation. Part of me thinks we'd be better off creating a few thousand bots spewing AI-level nonsense and turn Meta's shiny new Twitter-coffin-nailer into a firehose of monotonous horseshit and hope it never gets off the ground.
But I think the more powerful message is for us to calmly but firmly say "no thanks" and refuse to allow Meta to take advantage of our community.
Ask your admin to sign the ANTI-META ADMIN PACT to #DefederateMeta ... If we stand together we might actually win this.
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»
Would be interesting to hear the thoughts of the admin team of the anticapitalist flagship of the fediverse, our very own Kolektiva, on Meta federation… [ahem]
Wow, my thread from earlier this week about my concerns around Meta entering the Fediverse is really popping off right now. For those interested I am actively writing a blog post that goes into more detail around my concerns, that thread really didn't say that much. I'll hopefully have something up this weekend.
Definitely an enjoyable & thought-provoking conversation here between @mmasnick and @yoyoel , and mirrors many of the conversations I've seen on this platform regarding moving toward some degree of centralization of moderation.
However: given the level of nuance involved in this episode's discussion of content moderation, it surprised me that the 'Block Meta' argument was reduced to 'putting your head in the sand'.
Because it isn't even just the well-documented harms that have resulted from Facebook's moderation decisions, or the fact that just today they rolled back their policies on COVID misinformation.
No, there's also their data collection and surveillance, profiting off running anti-Black advertisements, horrendous treatment of workers especially in the Global South, the Cambridge Analytica scandal, deliberately pushing polarizing content designed to keep people scrolling no matter the societal consequences, and recently, bombshell reports of Instagram being perhaps the primary platform for the distribution of CSAM.
@smallpatatas I'm not surprised they'd see integrating with Meta as a no-brainer. It's very much the "protocols not platforms" vision Mike's been advocating since 2015 or so, and most of Yoel's career was at a surveillance-captialism company so he's likely to see it from that perspective. The choice of language is very interesting though. I'd describe #DefederateMeta as active resistance -- and some of the people who are ignoring Meta's track record are the ones putting their head in the sand.
Why /m/DefederateMeta ? (fedia.io)
Meta's upcoming 'P92' app is reported to have ActivityPub compatibility (link)...