Does anyone know if a graphic or animation was made to visualize a consent-based network or communal #fedifam#freefediverse network to help visualize this concept? I want to make one, but I wanted to see first if it already exists! @ophiocephalic@thenexusofprivacy maybe you all would know?
"Meta's fediverses", federating with Meta to allow communications, potentially using services from Meta such as automated moderation or ad targeting, and potentially harvesting data on Meta's behalf.
"free fediverses" that reject Meta – and surveillance capitalism more generally
The free fediverses have a lot of advantages over Meta and Meta's fediverses, some of which will be very hard to counter, and clearly have enough critical mass that they'll be just fine.
Here's a set of strategies for the free fediverses to provide a viable alternative to surveillance capitalism. They build on the strengths of today's fediverse at its best – including natural advantages the free fediverses have that Threads and Meta's fediverses will having a very hard time countering – but also are hopefully candid about weaknesses that need to be addressed. It's a long list, so I'll be spreading out over multiple posts; this post currently goes into detail on the first two.
Opposition to Meta and surveillance capitalism is an appealing position. Highlight it!
Focus on consent (including consent-based federation), privacy, and safety
Emphasize "networked communities"
Support concentric federations of instances and communities
Consider "transitively defederating" Meta's fediverses (as well as defederating Threads)
Consider working with people and instances in Meta's fediverses (and Bluesky, Dreamwidth, and other social networks) whose goals and values align with the free fediverses'
Build a sustainable ecosystem
Prepare for Meta's (and their allies') attempts to paint the free fediverses in a bad light
Reduce the dependency on Mastodon
Prioritize accessibility, which is a huge opportunity
Commit to anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-colonial, and pro-LGBTQIA2S+ principles, policies, practices, and norms for the free fediverses
We have recently been advocating the activation of a function which is present but usually off in Mastodon and other fedi services called Authorized Fetch. As we plead with the major development projects to take safety more seriously and make it a default, we have learned that Meta itself didn't think twice about it and has activated it in their own ActivityPub implementation against us.
We know this because of news that a fascist has devised a way to evade it and force federation with Threads. They promise to then turn their technique upon us and coerce unblockable federation with fascist and cryptospam instances: https://soapbox.pub/blog/threads-server-blocking/
While Authorized Fetch remains important to activate, it is clear that even it - which remember, provides better defense than that currently implemented on most of our home servers - is inadequate to the threats facing us as the Zuckerberg incursion progresses. If we're serious about protecting our communities and expressions from absorption into surveillance capitalism and the accelerating miseries of fascism, we need to talk about a stronger grade of defensive weaponry.
To this end, @are0h has fired a first volley: https://h-i.social/@are0h/111653850819592308 Every fedi community which serves as a refuge for those targeted and under siege should be thinking like this. True safety only awaits us in a transitive approach to defederation, and further on, in an intentional federation based on the allow-list.
Some worry that consent-based federation would lead to isolation, but this doesn't need to be true. For the end user, nothing at all would change; it would be just as easy or hard to join an instance as it is now, minus the funneling into a centralized, poorly-moderated vanilla flagship.
And what about new instance spinups? Their prospects could actually improve from the current status quo, if an allow-list fediverse was structured into instance alliances as described in the fedifam concept. New intra-fam spinups would automatically federate: https://kolektiva.social/@ophiocephalic/110793531238090472
Fedifams could then form trust-treaties with other fedifams, smoothing federation out from the fam into the broader fediverse in whatever manner of comfort or caution is preferred (such as limited or probationary federation): https://kolektiva.social/@ophiocephalic/110985194948458666
We accept and support new spinups by fellow travelers were are already in community with. The servers which entirely come in from the cold are mostly those belonging to the creatures of the dark-fedi, which cause many of the moderation problems for those of us on proportionately-sized instances (and most of the other problems are caused by the disproportionately-sized ones, who will be joining the Zuckerverse).
By assuming agency for who we choose to federate with, rather than existing in a state of constant reaction against those who would try and force us to federate with them, we can defend our federation both from the fascists, racists, transphobes and pedos of the defediverse, and from the horrifying and corruptive threat of the Zuckerberg entity, and its collaborator instances.
An intentional federation would be a more decentralized one, as we could fully affirm a collective choice to keep instances small. That's not just an abstract idea; a more decentralized fedi would be a more democratic one: https://kolektiva.social/@ophiocephalic/110707707012210965
And it would also be a more community-centered one. Currently, the Mastodon network in particular is being driven by an approach which denies the prospect for a riotous polyculture of small and distinct communities in favor of a growth-oriented monoculture in which "servers are not... communities" ( https://mastodon.social/@Gargron/111628882009671820 ) and "it doesn't matter which one you use" ( https://www.theverge.com/23658648/mastodon-ceo-twitter-interview-elon-musk-twitter ), an outlook which Zuckerberg must find favorable.
A note also on the gaslighting we face from Meta's colluders; the latest being the embarrassing spectacle of ActivityPub co-author Evan wagging around a "small fedi". @thenexusofprivacy has a good rebuttal to this cringe exhibitionism here: https://privacy.thenexus.today/the-annotated-case-for-a-big-fedi/
Evan has seen fit to misappropriate the "small fedi" idea, then build a blog post around warping it into a smear, with a long list of patronizing and fictional mischaracterizations. But what is truly small is the thinking that the fedi's future is surveillance, algorithmic ingestion, centralized servers too big to moderate, and huge psychotic corporations like Meta. In fact, that is social media's catastrophic past, the one we're all here to reject.
A better vision for a near-future fedi requires an exercise of both the technical and social imagination, and another thing that Meta's collaborators appear to find elusive: a moral center.
Instead of a regression into another Zuckerberg-controlled nightmare of hate speech, harassment, "brand engagement" and dehumanizing surveillance, we can push forward into an intentional federation based on consent and community, which centers the non-negotiable requirement of safety for everyone who otherwise has the most to lose from the betrayal of this online space of refuge and resistance.
The notes and accounts from the FediForum in late September suggest that some of "the people who move the fediverse forward", as the conference promotes itself as platforming, are also acutely interested in moving forward the agenda of Meta.
The forum's notes tell the tale. Though a number of topics, including many of genuine benefit, were touched upon, digging through the sessions turns up a path of breadcrumbs that leads straight back to Palo Alto.
Inspiringly, the forum also paused for a moment of self-reflection, in a session essentially grappling with the question, "Why did we only invite white people to the workshop we organized?" https://fediforum.org/2023-09/session/3-c/
Again, the list above is selective, but piecing the mosaic together reveals a picture for a proposed future-fedi that looks a whole lot like something Mark Zuckerberg could work with.
But the central figure, of course, is the surveillance - and this part of the puzzle is already under construction.
The FediForum dedicated no less than four sessions in support of a plan by the IFTAS thinktank for a realtime centralized "AI" surveillance system for the fediverse.
The centralization scheme is being developed in partnership with an entity called Thorn - a for-profit "AI" surveillance privateer which pretends to be a "for the children" NGO. Thorn is hot news lately due to its blatantly corrupt involvement in the EU Chat Control plot, which would destroy the free internet and online privacy in Europe but create a huge business opportunity for Thorn.
The blocklist system IFTAS proposes is called CARIAD - "Consensus Aggregated Retractable IFTAS Allowlist Denylist".
CARIAD's blocking data will be aggregated from two sources. The first is the Facebook Mafia spider-holed at Stanford, which fabricated the CSAM-scare influence operation that roiled the fedi a few months ago. More on them here: https://kolektiva.social/@ophiocephalic/110772380949893619
The second is "an aggregation of at least ten of the largest ActivityPub service providers"; this would seem to be a sugar pill to win over Mastodon gGmbH and a few other megaservers.
The system itself is somewhat similar to that proposed in the Nivenly FSEP plan which has proven so controversial over the last couple of months; except that, instead of centralizing blocklist control with WelshPixie, CARIAD centralizes control with Meta-linked authoritarian techbros.
Other aspects of the IFTAS surveillance scheme are outlined in the slide deck. They include centralized realtime image and video scanning utilizing Thorn's "AI". Transgressive accounts would be auto-reported to authorities. It should also be noted that Thorn technology employs Amazon's facial recognition algorithms.
As a further comment to this prospect, consider that we are now observing how the moderates currently in power in the so-called United States seem to be gift-wrapping policies (KOSA, the border wall, the criminalization of protest and homelessness) for the reactionary extremists who may well succeed them.
Technologies such as Thorn's should be evaluated in the same light. They may - or may not - only detect CSAM for now. But how will they be repurposed if there are drastic political changes in the US or other "democracies"? What beliefs, convictions, sexual or gender identities will come to be mandated as equivalently deviant? Europol already has some ideas: https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/29/europol-sought-unlimited-data-access-in-online-child-sexual-abuse-regulation/
The workshop notes also reveal that some of the FediForum sessions concerning the IFTAS system featured multiple participants straight from Meta. There's no need to speculate further. The Zuckerberg entity seeks to impose this surveillance technology on the fediverse before federating.
The September FediForum and the solutionist machinations it platformed provide further detail for our understanding of Facebook's designs on the fediverse. The water is gradually being brought to boil, and it remains to be seen if the frogs of the FediPact 🐸 can leap to action in time.
Observing fedi-folk from various marginalized communities snipe at each other over the past week has been devastating and tragic. No conspiracy theory here, but if there were some nefarious plot to weaken the fediverse, provoking a conflict like this one would be an effective way to go about it.
The purpose of this post isn't to further stir the shit. But it's worth taking a look at origins, alternatives and possible consequences in light of the ongoing threat of authoritarian and capitalist recuperation looming over the fedi.
The issue here should be clear enough. FSEP is a plan to centralize control over blocklists.
From here, we could easily dive in to why it might be a Bad Idea to make The Bad Space, specifically, the locus of that centralized control - not least because, though some of its "trusted sources" are solid, a few are in fact broadly untrusted by a majority of the fediverse.
But the point here isn't to join in the dunk on The Bad Space. FSEP would be problematic regardless of where it centralizes its control. The problem is that FSEP centralizes control.
The purpose of this thread is not to suggest malign intentions on the part of anyone involved. We ourselves have advocated for better ways to federate deny- or allow-lists. The concern is the method.
There is a type of social engineering at work here which is unmistakably redolent of big-tech solutionism. These approaches may seem fit for the top-down hierarchies of large corporations, but they won't work on a network whose essential character is defined by its decentralization. The week's debacle is a result of this mismatch.
Notice the comment of @mekkaokereke , "We will make the Fediverse safe for people of all backgrounds." Everyone with a soul will agree with the goal. But it's a different statement than to affirm, for example, "We will all make the fediverse safe together." Who does and does not comprise "we" in a project of this nature?
Compare the FSEP initiative with the independent project Fediseer developed by @db0 , intended initially to federate "endorse" and "censure" functionality on Lemmy. Both are crowdsourced, there is no "blocklist author". In fact, there is no real blocklist in a static sense, but rather a dynamic pool of classifications.
Approvals and disapprovals are affirmed through a human-based "chain of trust". Sets of classifications can be subscribed to in a granular manner. The system also allows for another principle sorely lacking in the blocklist-based approach - grace.
In the event that a temporary issue is resolved, censures can be withdrawn, and those changes can automatically federate. It's a far cry from the quasi-moralistic condemned-for-all-time scarlet letters regularly dispensed by some of The Bad Space's "trusted sources".
Fediseer represents the kind of horizontalist, agency-distributing creative thinking the fediverse needs to solve its blocklist problems. (It should also be noted that @db0 is collaborating with The Nivenly Foundation on another project, and the reference here to their Fediseer work shouldn't be construed as forming any connection between @db0 and the critique of Nivenly in this thread).
And those problems do need to be solved. As we have noted before, Facebook and its associated operatives are coming for this network. They intend to target weaknesses in the blocklist system to claim that the only possibility for sustainable moderation on the fediverse is corporate-centralized algorithmic surveillance, complete with functionality to auto-report subversive elements to the "appropriate authorities".
In a meeting held in early August, the imposition of algorithmic surveillance onto the fediverse was discussed by several participants, including a representative of IFTAS. Their organization was presented as a possible vehicle for the standardization of third-party surveillance-capitalist moderation schemes. It should be noted that there was a mention of possible disagreement within their organization on the propriety of this idea.
The fediverse has real moderation problems, and one way or another, changes are coming to the ways in which they are addressed. Two possibilities present themselves.
We can continue to watch as solidarity and any sense of mutual purpose drain away, while self-appointed central-authorities assume control of the best practices on how to do a fediverse. Or we can proactively affirm and act upon the recognition that democratization, decentralization and the horizontal distribution of agency remain the only hope for preserving the fedi as a safe site of resistance and prefigurative possibility.
Announcing Free Fediverse, a website resource for all of us fighting to save our communities from absorption into surveillance capitalism!
There are lots of stories, thinkpieces, links and statements flying around and disappearing quickly, and it would be handy to have a place to store and reference them all. Free Fediverse is that place.
Free Fediverse is a wiki-based site linking to resources of the following categories:
Links to and information on the FediPact
Essays on the Meta threat to the Fediverse
Articles on P92 in mainstream media outlets
Announcements from instance admins on joining the pact
Links and information for development projects beyond corporate enclosure
Articles on Meta's many crimes against humanity
Free Fediverse will continue to be updated. Just hit me up to suggest a link for any category. More links to FediPact instance statements are very welcome!
The website has no ads, trackers or analytics. Ferdi the Free Fediverse Froggy sez "hop on over!"
For anyone mobilizing to defend their own account, the fedi community they administer, or the entire fediverse against the Zuckerberg incursion now underway, the Free Fediverse website has a plethora of links to helpful resources.
🐸 FediPact: Info on the pact and how to find an instance you can trust
🐸 Developments: Information on blocking Meta, account migration, and authorized fetch
🐸 Articles: An ongoing history of the Meta scheme to take over the fedi
🐸 Essays: Thinkpieces on the threat and how to save the fediverse from corporate enclosure
🐸 Nightmares: Tons of articles on Meta's many crimes against humanity