I’ve seen a lot of discussion about Threads around the fediverse and I believe our main instance community has had a few large discussions about it (here’s a recent one).
I didn’t see an Agora discussion post, so I’m making one.
Can we all discuss our opinions on whether we want this instance to remain federated with Threads or not and share our reasons? I’d appreciate it!
Why not? If it doesn’t work out, we can reverse the decision.
I’m for defederating. We are small but it would be great if the fediverse collectively showed silicon valley it’s not welcome. Would probably be the first time anyone ever told them no and it’s about time they heard it.
edit: I also joined the fediverse to be as far away from the enshittified part of the internet as I can be. I really don’t care to join back up with them.
Let’s not be Federated with them because no thanks zuck shenanigans
I don’t think I’ve seen Ploum’s essay about this posted in this discussion yet. The history of how Google killed XMPP is relevant here because Meta is very aware of that history. “Competition is for losers”, and the fediverse is the competition.
That said, I suspect the only thing defederating our instance from Meta is going to do is help send a message they’re not welcome here in the fediverse - and I think that has a lot of value, but whichever choice is made I don’t think is going to materially change our experience here on Lemmy. It looks like they’re going after Twitter and Mastodon, not Reddit and Lemmy/Kbin right now. That email that was leaked (and posted elsewhere in this discussion) implies they’re only going to bother federating with larger communities in Mastodon that are willing to work closely with them which makes sense because all of these tech companies want a heavily controlled (by them) walled garden experience. I’m guessing initially that agreement for instance owners is going to mostly be content moderation standards that are going to largely be in line with what’s already being enforced, but that’s not going to be their end goals because everyone not on Threads but is using a compatible platform is someone they might be able to bring to Threads and more effectively mine their data. I’m really curious about that meeting, because if “require email for sign-ups and provide that information to Meta, ‘for moderation purposes’” is one of their requirements off the bat, that’s going to give them the ability to identify quite a few Mastodon users for marketing outside of the platform.
I want the Dude’s thoughts on this, because of the email that was leaked and because he believed in Lemmy enough to make this instance - what does the future of Lemmy and the fediverse look like to him? I want the thoughts of someone who didn’t come from Reddit in the past couple of months because they’ve had a lot longer think about what the fediverse, and the Internet as a whole, could look like, and that vision probably doesn’t line up with anything the big tech companies could ever make. We already know Dessalines’ thoughts on this, and since he’s working from the “capitalism fucks over everything” part of his political views I think his views are going to line up with a lot of other people’s here on the fediverse (a lot of disagreement on the left stems from what happens after we eat the rich, not anything up to that point), but I do want more opinions on this from people who are deeply philosophically invested in the fediverse as an idea.
I don’t think defederaton is going to do anything but help us stand in solidarity with a large chunk of the fediverse in saying “Fuck Meta”. But I like that message. Fuck Meta.
I have a vote for defederation, because fuck a big company. They’re not hurting us yet? They will.
Main developer and lemmy.ml admin Dessalines made this statement lately:
Link: https://lemmy.ml/post/1818412
(!meta@lemmy.ml the comments didn’t federate to this server very well)Lemmy.ml has now blocked threads.net / Meta
It should come as no surprise that the lemmy.ml admin team took about 2 minutes to decide to pre-emptively block threats / Meta. Their transparent and opportunistic scheme to commodify the fediverse and it’s users will not be allowed to proceed.
We strongly encourage other instance administrators to do the same, given the grave threat they pose to the fediverse.
As rumors have it now, Meta may not want to federate with any Mastodon instance but they may want to buy in with larger instances (buseness contracts including NDAs). Which means that some select places/admins may get funding to handle Meta’s traffic and extensions, but the large majority will not.
some JUICY rumored details about meta’s plans for the fediverse
Kev Quirk from fosstodon.org posting the invitation by Meta for a behind-the-curtains roundtable (and his reply)
https://fedia.io/m/DefederateMeta/t/43065/Rumours-that-Meta-s-strategy-is-much-worse-than-many-suspectedIt’s also worth noting that the lemmy developers are Tankies and self-proclaimed authoritarians
So don’t defederate with Meta to own the tankies? That seems like pretty poor reasoning.
Meta and other large companies should be defederated preemptively. You can judge them by what they have done, which consistently runs counter to the interest of ordinary people.
Just pointing out that the devs aren’t doing it protect Lemmy’s freedom.
You’d have more of an argument if you actually posted proof instead of … well … nothing.
If/when it comes to a vote I’ll vote to defederate just about any corporate-backed entrance into the fediverse, including any Threads instances. I think in the long run they will ruin whatever they touch.
Can we all discuss our opinions on whether we want this instance to remain federated with Threads or not and share our reasons?
Considering we already did that multiple times in the last few days all over the Fediverse I don’t quite see the point of your post.
https://sh.itjust.works/post/774605
https://sh.itjust.works/post/820821
And I even left out all the other posts in the Fediverse community and the main communities of other instances.
As far as I understand it, an agora discussion is a necessary step before a vote. If you want to take any action either way, I think we have to discuss here first.
Let me know if I’ve misunderstood.
Let me know if I’ve misunderstood.
You did not misunderstand.
Even so, I think the Agora is a very suitable place for a discussion like this.
Personally, I’m still somewhat on the fence, but leaning towards “do nothing”.
Pro-defederation: Threads users will greatly reduce the quality of discussion (weak argument imho) and Meta’s overall goal is likely an attempted takeover of the fediverse (more compelling).
Anti-defederation: Meta can’t take over anything without user support, which means there’s not really much reason to freak out. Any data they could get by being federated they could get anyway, so no issues there. If they do start actively damaging the fediverse, we can still defederate later. Finally, users being exposed to instances that don’t run on Zuck’s narcissism and greed might convince some people to jump ship.
Overall, I currently don’t see a pathway to damage from Meta’s participation in the fediverse, and I don’t think we should be too hasty on this.
How does Meta do a “takeover of the fediverse”? The whole design of the fediverse prevents it from being controlled by any single entity.
People are mainly concerned about ‘Embrace Extend Extinguish’ which is a method large companies have used to disrupt open source communities in the past. Here’s the wiki on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
You can see microsoft was big on using it to try to sabotage browser competition and later chat app competition. These days google is accused of doing the same browser competition sabotage.
So for social media this might look like: adding features to posts that only work on Threads, or possibly wrapping fediverse content in their ads / own comment section, and supressing the fediverse comment section / original creators.
I don’t know that this will happen and if it does it will take awhile - the initial ‘embrace’ step is meant to be non-threatening for the communities being absorbed.
While I understand the collective freakout over Threads, I don’t think we should do anything yet. Let the dust settle a bit. There’s no sense in shooting from the hip.
When it comes to anything Zucky or Musky I say shooting before asking questions should be SOP.
I don’t think this is the purpose of federation. Threads exists and has a huge amount of users.
Meta will ensure that it grows rapidly and defederating them ensures that users looking to join the largest ActivityPub-based social media network will likely go in the direction of Meta’s services.
The way that instances win this battle is to offer better services and a better experience than Threads. We simply don’t have the userbase to kill Threads by defederating with them. When given a choice the average user will default to using Meta’s services… it will take time and interaction with them to convince them to leave.
You mention ‘users looking to join the largest activity-pub based social media network’
I have a question: Do you think we should be trying to compete for these users? In order to do that, wouldn’t this instance have to try to grow very large?
To my mind, there are many downsides to having a few large instances on the fediverse. We’ve seen in just the last 2 days big instances going down because of vulnerabilities in new updates being exploited.
Also in general the experience of a very large community isn’t good, and we’ve seen that trend with previous social media. Having smaller communities where individuals are semi-known leads to nicer communities, whereas huge social networks feel like screaming matches. The only reason old social networks pushed so hard for more users is for money making reasons. For us, too many people (especially casual people who dont contribute) on the server just strains our resources.
I think people need to learn a behavioral change where they S P R E A D O U T and realize that they don’t need a large instance for lots of content and engagement.
Really interested in your thoughts on this though. I like your points.
I have a question: Do you think we should be trying to compete for these users? In order to do that, wouldn’t this instance have to try to grow very large?
I don’t mean this instance or any single instance specifically. The idea of the ‘defederate Meta’ pact is to create a separate network of instances that have all blocked Meta services. That network of instances would have a tiny userbase compared to the network of instances that federated with Meta’s services. If a generic user is looking to create an account on an instance then they’d likely just default to the network that has 8 billion users rather than the one with 10 million.
I agree with the idea of smaller communities being more attractive but I think that a social network, like the Internet, works best when it is fully connected with as little friction as possible. Communities and instances can grow or limit themselves as much as they’d like but the entire network itself shouldn’t become fragmented.
I think Meta’s goal here isn’t to take over the Fediverse and own it like they own Facebook. They likely want to be like Google where they control none of the content (and all of the associated costs and legal issues) but provide the core services and ad networks that are so profitable. Google’s “content” is the entire web, they simply provide a useful service (search) and, because of that service, they have the ability to mine incredibly valuable data which they use to generate revenue through ad targeting. I think Meta is aiming for this kind of business model so that they can dump the headaches that come from hosting massive amounts of user data/content.
I’m imagining 10 years into the future where you would, instead of using Google’s Ad Sense, use Meta’s ad platform since it would provide more money from advertisements as the ad targeting is using information gathered from the ActivityPub extensions that Meta develops. Meta devotes tons developer hours to extending the social media protocols so that people use them and Meta profits from the data collection and other services (hosting instances, storing data, etc) that don’t require them to actually run a social media website directly. This makes Meta more like an aspiring symbiote rather than a hostile instance that wants to ‘take over’ the fediverse.
I think that, to combat this, people who are motiviated should be looking at ways to create a software ecosystem that counters Meta dominance. Instead people are looking at this like it’s just another instance that they don’t like. I think that’s a very short-sighted way of addressing the issue.
Exactly. Keeping our platform as open as possible helps us to grow as a community.
If you hate Meta and love Lemmy, the best thing to do is to federate with them. We stand to benefit far more from their massive user base they are from our tiny one.
As I understand defederation, it only blocks their content from showing up here. But not the other way around.
Everything posted here, every comment, vote, etc. is completely public and anyone can collect that data. So the argument that Meta is scraping data therefore we should defederate is nonsensical.
It is too soon to defederate with Meta, and it’s extremely reactionary and ineffective if the sole motivation is to hurt Meta or protect our data. Defederation accomplishes none of that. It only makes communities on Lemmy look immature and capricious by defederating from a company along the rationale of FACEBOOK BAD.
If I understand it, it would prevent our content from automatically propagating over there (our server doesnt send content). But if they want to make another stealth instance and farm the content from there they could.
I honestly don’t understand the benefit of defederating. The argument seems to boil down to “Meta bad”.
The thing is, we’re not doing much to hurt Meta by defederating – they’re far too big to care. On the other hand, by silo-ing ourselves off as a tiny community, we’re actually just preventing our own potential growth.
