I strongly encourage instance admins to defederate from Facebook/Threads/Meta.
They aren’t some new, bright-eyed group with no track record. They’re a borderline Machiavellian megacorporation with a long and continuing history of extremely hostile actions:
- Helping enhance genocides in countries
- Openly and willingly taking part in political manipulation (see Cambridge Analytica)
- Actively have campaigned against net neutrality and attempted to make “facebook” most of the internet for members of countries with weaker internet infra - directly contributing to their amplification of genocide (see the genocide link for info)
- Using their users as non-consenting subjects to psychological experiments.
- Absolutely ludicrous invasions of privacy - even if they aren’t able to do this directly to the Fediverse, it illustrates their attitude.
- Even now, they’re on-record of attempting to get instance admins to do backdoor discussions and sign NDAs.
Yes, I know one of the Mastodon folks have said they’re not worried. Frankly, I think they’re being laughably naive >.<. Facebook/Meta - and Instagram’s CEO - might say pretty words - but words are cheap and from a known-hostile entity like Meta/Facebook they are almost certainly just a manipulation strategy.
In my view, they should be discarded as entirely irrelevant, or viewed as deliberate lies, given their continued atrocious behaviour and open manipulation of vast swathes of the population.
Facebook have large amounts of experience on how to attack and astroturf social media communities - hell I would be very unsurprised if they are already doing it, but it’s difficult to say without solid evidence ^.^
Why should we believe anything they say, ever? Why should we believe they aren’t just trying to destroy a competitor before it gets going properly, or worse, turn it into yet another arm of their sprawling network of services, via Embrace, Extend, Extinguish - or perhaps Embrace, Extend, Consume would be a better term in this case?
When will we ever learn that openly-manipulative, openly-assimilationist corporations need to be shoved out before they can gain any foothold and subsume our network and relegate it to the annals of history?
I’ve seen plenty of arguments claiming that it’s “anti-open-source” to defederate, or that it means we aren’t “resilient”, which is wrong ^.^:
- Open source isn’t about blindly trusting every organisation that participates in a network, especially not one which is known-hostile. Threads can start their own ActivityPub network if they really want or implement the protocol for themselves. It doesn’t mean we lose the right to kick them out of most - or all - of our instances ^.^.
- Defederation is part of how the fediverse is resilient. It is the immune system of the network against hostile actors (it can be used in other ways, too, of course). Facebook, I think, is a textbook example of a hostile actor, and has such an unimaginably bad record that anything they say should be treated as a form of manipulation.
Edit 1 - Some More Arguments
In this thread, I’ve seen some more arguments about Meta/FB federation:
- Defederation doesn’t stop them from receiving our public content:
- This is true, but very incomplete. The content you post is public, but what Meta/Facebook is really after is having their users interact with content. Defederation prevents this.
- Federation will attract more users:
- Only if Threads makes it trivial to move/make accounts on other instances, and makes the fact it’s a federation clear to the users, and doesn’t end up hosting most communities by sheer mass or outright manipulation.
- Given that Threads as a platform is not open source - you can’t host your own “Threads Server” instance - and presumably their app only works with the Threads Server that they run - this is very unlikely. Unless they also make Threads a Mastodon/Calckey/KBin/etc. client.
- Therefore, their app is probably intending to make itself their user’s primary interaction method for the Fediverse, while also making sure that any attempt to migrate off is met with unfamiliar interfaces because no-one else can host a server that can interface with it.
- Ergo, they want to strongly incentivize people to stay within their walled garden version of the Fediverse by ensuring the rest remains unfamiliar - breaking the momentum of the current movement towards it. ^.^
- We just need to create “better” front ends:
- This is a good long-term strategy, because of the cycle of enshittification.
- Facebook/Meta has far more resources than us to improve the “slickness” of their clients at this time. Until the fediverse grows more, and while they aren’t yet under immediate pressure to make their app profitable via enshittification and advertising, we won’t manage >.<
- This also assumes that Facebook/Meta won’t engage in efforts to make this harder e.g. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish/Consume, or social manipulation attempts.
- Therefore we should defederate and still keep working on making improvements. This strategy of “better clients” is only viable in combination with defederation.
PART 2 (post got too long!)
You must log in or register to comment.
The craziest thing to me is that people seem to be lining up to make excuses for Meta. We learned the first week of this migration that defederating can get messy, we saw it right away with Beehaw.
Had Beehaw defederated from the larger instances sooner, then there would have been no outrage in the community over it. But while Lemmy was seeing a lot of growth, a lot of the big communities were being made on beehaw. All of the sudden, people were unable to access these communities properly and they were PISSED.
Guys, look around! Threads has what, 10 million users already? We have like, a hundred thousand, maybe a few hundred thousand at best? They will no doubt have huge communities formed by the time they decide they want to start federating. The ratio of Lemmy/Kbin users to threads users will be 100:1.
If we federate with Meta we basically have no choice but to use the communities they host. People only want to use 1 community (the issue of duplicate communities is brought up daily), so they will flock to the largest one. When Meta decides they don’t want to play nice with us anymore (and they will, it is never profitable to let people access all your content completely free, and shareholders will come knocking), defederation is going to decimate whats left here. Personally I think the place would implode, and many would migrate to where the content is.
The post is too big for my next edit, so here is the next edit in a comment:
Edit 2 - Clarification, Expanding on Facebook’s Behaviour, Discussion of Admin-FB Meetups
I want to clarify the specific dangers of Meta/FB, as well as some terminology.
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, and Embrace, Extend, Consume
The link I posted approximately explains EEE, but in this thread I’ve used the phrase “Embrace, Extend, Consume”, to illustrate a slightly modified form of this behaviour.
Embrace, Extend, Consume is like Embrace, Extend, Extinguish except the end goal isn’t complete annihilation of the target. Instead of defederating at the endpoint, Meta/FB just dominates the entire standard, and anyone who steps out of line is forced into a miniscule network of others.
They can then use this dominant position to buy out or consume large instances, or for example, force data collection features into the standard and aggressively defederate anyone else who doesn’t comply >.< - because they’re so big, most instances will comply in the service of “content”.
Such a dominant position can even be obtained simply by sheer user mass, which Threads already has to some degree, as long as the relevant instance has large amounts of financial resources to buy out instances.
In this way, they consume the network entirely, which doesn’t necessarily destroy the communities but essentially Borg-ifies them and renders people unable to leave their grasp.
Facebook/Meta-Specific Threats: Information Warfare & Manipulation
One of the major specific threats of Meta/FB in particular is their long and continued history of engaging in what essentially amounts to large-scale psychological manipulation and information warfare towards it’s various goals (money, total domination of human communication, subsuming the internet in countries where the infrastructure is still too small to resist a single corporation restricting it’s content, political manipulation, collection of ever more data, etc.), against both it’s users and non-users.
They have well over a decade of experience in this, hundreds of times more users than us (providing good cloaking for astroturfers), and untold amounts of labour, research and other resources have been poured specifically into figuring out the most effective ways to manipulate social groups via techniques like astroturfing, algorithmic prioritization, and more sophisticated strategies I am not aware of. All backed by data from literally billions of human beings >.<
This means that exposing the Fediverse to Facebook/Meta is essentially exposing us all to one of the most organised and sophisticated information warfare machines that has ever been created. Cutting off the connections immediately (as in the other analogy by @[email protected]) not only protects from direct EEE/EEC, but also makes it harder for Meta/Facebook to influence, dominate, and consume the conversation here, either by sheer user-mass, or by malicious information warfare (or even unintentional consequences of their algorithms), or by a combination of all of these.
We know they are extremely malicious and willing to use these methods towards real-life, ultra-harmful ends. Examples are at the start of this post :)
For hypothetical examples on how this might work - in reality it might be different in the specifics (these are just illustrative):
- Meta/FB could start a campaign (maybe astroturfed) for “user safety”, where they encourage people to distrust users from smaller instances or any user with their instance address marker not on
@threads.<whatever their url> - Meta/FB could add “secure messaging” (lol, it’s facebook), but only between threads users. Then they could push the idea that ActivityPub is bad for privacy (the DMs are, but just use Matrix ;p - if you post stuff publicly, it makes sense that it’s public).
- Meta/FB could by simple user mass result in most communities being on Threads. People tend to drift towards more populous communities about the same topic, in general, and Threads unbalances the user ratios so much that everyone would just go to those >.< (as opposed to right now, where we have similar sized communities on several large instances, where most people subscribe to most of them)
- Meta/FB could use social engineering to push for changes to the ActivityPub protocol that are harder for other ActivityPub servers to implement ^.^, or even ones that are hard for non-proprietary clients to implement. For example, embedding DRM in the protocol or something like that.
- Meta’s algorithms could over time shift towards deprioritising non-“paid”/“verified” Threads users.
- It’s already been explained how the app as we know it essentially makes it hard for people to leave due to the fact only they have access to their server software and they also ensure that the app is only a specific client for this service.
Instance Admins, and the “Friendliness” of Meta
Some instance admins have been in contact with Meta/FB. It does make sense for at least some of them to do “due dilligence”, but I’ve seen in at least one post a comment on the friendliness and cooperativeness of the engineers and the fact they mostly discussed architectural concerns and stuff like moderation and technical stuff.
I want to remind instance admins that no matter how nice the engineers are - and how much they share your interests - they are still working for what is essentially a mass information warfare machine. This doesn’t make them malicious at all, but it does mean that what they are doing is not a solid perspective on the actual goals and attitude of Meta/Facebook, The Corporate Assimilator Organism.
Regardless of what they have discussed, they are obligated as employees to act on Meta’s orders, not the things they actually want to work on or the things both them and you find important ^.^ - or even act towards the goals they want to act towards when Meta inevitably goes for the throat.
I encourage instance admins to keep this in mind, and further keep in mind that Meta is pretty much royalty when it comes to social stuff and how to appeal to people. If they were trying to appeal to a more corporate social media service, they’d probably have gone with sending in the C-suite, but they know this community is technically inclined and less likely to buy into corpo speak and corpo bullcrap, so they probably hooked you up with all the chill engineers instead :).
Reiterating my view: Resist Corpo-Assimilation!
Note on This Post
I’ve realised this post would probably be most useful if the primary targets of Threads could see it (Mastodon). But I don’t have Mastodon cus I really am not into microblogging myself, so RIP ;p
- Meta/FB could start a campaign (maybe astroturfed) for “user safety”, where they encourage people to distrust users from smaller instances or any user with their instance address marker not on
Defed every corporation. McDonald’s starts an instance? Fuck off and fix your ice cream machine. Gabe Newell starts a Steam instance? No Gabe, go make half life 3. Make all these suits federate each other and see if anyone wants to talk on their shit.
Defederation is the only way. Freedom. Fediverse. Only forward!
I’ve never had any problems at McDonald’s with their ice cream / milkshake machines in Europe. Maybe the US simply gets the faulty machines?
There’s heaps of vids on yt about the MacDonald’s ice cream machine racket.
It’s a pretty well established anecdote that most of the time a McDonalds tells you the ice cream machine is broken, it’s because they’ve already cleaned it for the night and if they use it again they’ll need to reclean it. It’s easier to say it’s broken rather than make one dessert and then have to reclean it all over again.
That’s not why at all. Watch the video @danielton posted below.
Bullshit. I know everybody loves a good “lazy employees” story, but American machines are designed to break down constantly so Taylor gets repair revenue from McDonald’s franchise owners.
I used to work at McDonald’s and got tired of the constant accusations from customers. Johnny Harris made an excellent video on this topic.
I know a good number of McDonald’s employees are lazy, but that damn machine was the bane of my existence when I was a manager. It would just randomly decide not to work for the day and we had to call Taylor.
I was a manager at a McDonald’s In the UK for five years. Can honestly say our shake/I’ve cream machine never once broke down.
We never took it off early for the nightly clean though, that only took a matter of minutes.
But the regular deap clean, we took it off for that, usually a Monday or Tuesday night as they were quiet, and we were straight up with customers and said it was being cleaned
Most McDonald’s in the UK are corporate owned, not franchised, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they ordered more reliable machines there. The corporate owned locations here in the States always seem to have ice cream as well.
I worked for a privately-owned location and that damn machine would randomly say “FREEZER LOCK” and refuse to work until Taylor could come to reset it, and of course the owner didn’t want us to rack up the repair bills. Johnny Harris and Louis Rossmann covered this on their channels, which I appreciate because it did feel like the machines were intended to break down all the time.
To be fair, I did say “well established anecdote” and not “well established fact”.
You’re not getting the real McDonalds experience
The company that maintains the machines has a contractually enforced monopoly over the franchisee’s. This means it’s impossible to get parts or fix the machines outside of them doing it.
Meta in particular has a specific record of social manipulation, which is why I think defederating them specifically is so important. Even if we collectively have mixed feelings on corporate instances in general, social media companies, especially those like Facebook, have a specific and direct record of manipulating people and the population nya. Facebook/Meta in particular, is probably the worst of any of them.
It’s strange how Mastodon is so willingly letting them in. Fishy… Fishy and hairy. Like a fish with some nice bangs. Maybe a mullet. A little mustache too, recently brushed with a little mustache brush.
Meta might be the worst possible company to darken our doorstep; at least Elon would fail.
Yes, reputation is very important. The cluster of people known as Meta has proven it is nefarious at best.
It’s good to consider the case-by-case basis instead of just making general rules.
Like if Lowes wanted to make an instance I wouldn’t worry much about its corporate influence. But Meta is actually an evil organization.
(Though their React docs are some of the best docs I’ve ever read)
No Gabe, go make half life 3.
This make me chuckle.
I mean, they aren’t fucking wrong. Half life 3 has a federated communication system built into multiplayer? Go do it Gabe.
Whats wrong with steam?
Right now we’re losing tons of information after snapchat bought and deleted the gyffcaf website.
Now imagine losing all games when Gabe dies and the new patron loses the company to a newfound addiction to whatever
It’s a giant drm manager. Popular, useful, sure, but the day it dies all your content will go poof.
Isnt that based on the assumption that Valves public comment about removing the drm in the case they go under is a lie. It becomes a trust issue then, and to the public view, many put trust in them.
They have no reason to honor that, and are a corporation. I don’t consider that binding or realistic.
There are many things that happen for “no reason”. Its fully a trust issue if you dont think it would happen.
OK. You’re welcome to trust in anything you like. I believe contracts, not promises.
Yeah – it should be in writing with the customers (ToS?) and every contract Valve signs with game developers for it to be something that can actually be performed.
We will need the judicial system to force Valve to remove the DRM.
Wait, do you need Internet access to play your offline games? If so, moving to itch.io
I like itch, but it’s no steam killer. We need a way to somehow own our digital games in a way that is not centralized to one marketplace.
What benefits could give to the user and the producer the descentralization?
Disintermediation would be nice; More of my money going directly into the hands of game developers instead of executives. Also, people who own games should be able to resell them. Can’t do that with centralized platforms. A benefit of decentralized game ownership would be that the developer could be cut into the resale of their games, which shifts the incentive to a more long-term view. A game could be something that is supported by the “used” market, and therefore has a reason to invest in long-term value. No more drive to keep on reinventing the wheel and releasing new games every year, just keep on making the existing game better.
Oh, nice response, I want to be optimistic and see in the future more and more descentralization
i think nothing beats literally getting the zip file with all the contents of the game with no middleware like GOG employs. to decentralize the store further requires the devs to at least manage their own website hosting, domains, ownership status accounts for updates. the only step available beyond that is the payment methods, and i don’t think there’s any viable solution to be done in that case besides having more companies like Stripe and Paypal.
in that sense, Itch is handling things pretty good for devs so far,
The main thing I’m for is improved ownership rights, and currently GOG is the best of them. The only downside with it is that you can’t sell it on when you’re done, like old games in physical media. When digital media has none of digital media’s drawbacks, then I’ll leave off about the potential of NFTs.
problem there is that anti-drm and ownership of a license to download and run software don’t combine while financially viable to the stores. aside from the additional problem of having to manage inventories, trades and everything that happens to break those systems, “owning” the license and allowing to sell to someone else doesn’t do much if you don’t employ a DRM to enforce the make-believe of you pretending you’re monetarily compensating a physical larbor of transferring a given copy of a media, people will share things with each other before you can blink and not care where it comes from so long as it runs and it’s clean, specially in places where people won’t pay for games instead of food. only reason CSGO skins works on Steam as the original NFT system is because there’s servers to enforce what people get to see you holding and what you don’t own. and allowing for transferring games between accounts without a DRM is not something you’ll ever see any big company doing under the liability of being accused of promoting “piracy”.
No, not in my experience. Some games do exist that do that, but that’s the choice of the developer.
Depends on the game. These ones for example don’t even require you to launch them through Steam.
Should Note that if a game isn’t on that list, that doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t DRM free. For example “Rain world” is not on that list and it is not required to launch it through Steam. So this list is by no means exhaustive.
Cool, thanks for the resource
Removed by mod
I have no love for corporations but they’re a fact of life by this point on the internet. They drive a significant about of marketing and users and they’re what make a social media platform take off (which is why Parler and Gab fell apart).
Fediverse SHOULD be an ethical platform, but you have server admins defederating any instance that even has paid subscribers. Isn’t that going too far? Are we trying to force everyone on here into a kibbutz?
I believe the only instances that should be defederated are corporate, self-harm, profanely illegal, and political extremist instances.
Anything further than that and the whole network is going to devolve into a series of micro echo chambers.
Or maybe it won’t, maybe the vast and free instances will flourish while the restrictive instances die out.
Either way, trying to control a community based on wishy washy ideology is not a good look.
I think in these early days we’ll see a lot of power drunk admins who are too eager to push the button, just because they can.
Political extremism is part of how Lemmy got its start! The political center is crony capitalism, basically Facebook.
To add to that maybe a general rule of thumb would be to defederate with any instances that go against the sustainability and self interest of the whole fediverse.
Absolutely, and the actions that “go against the sustainability and self-interest of the fediverse” will need to be analyzed and codified into fediverse “law.”
If we make specific and firm rules about what is disallowed on an instance, it makes enforcing those rules simple.
Agree.
But isn’t half life alyx basically hl3?
VR will remain a gimmick until it isn’t a whole-ass lifestyle.
“Vr is a gimmick” -people who haven’t owned a proper vr headset
I do games research for a living and have access to pretty much every relevant VR headset made since the first Oculus.
VR is very much a gimmick. There is no killer app or feature, and the closest thing we get to one are exergames like Beat Saber. Games like HL: Alyx don’t really offer enough novelty to make people invest several thousand dollars. Similarly, virtual desktops are neat but really don’t offer any tangible benefits compared to a large monitor to make up for the added discomfort of having to wear a VR headset. The Snow Crash-style metaverse is and always has been absolute bullshit. It’s just a less convenient version of the metaverse we already have.
VR has some potential to create cool embodied experiences, but the benefits so far are so slight that the technology is looking a lot like 3D TV and HD-DVD: technically impressive, no meaningful improvement in the holistic user experience. Hence, it remains a gimmick.
Games like HL: Alyx don’t really offer enough novelty to make people invest several thousand dollars.
I have to disagree with this statement. Having played through that game multiple times, it just provides a level of immersion that no other VR game has touched yet. Heck, from an immersion perspective, it pretty much beats every game I’ve ever played in my life.
The problem with the VR industry is that so few games approach HL: Alyx’s level of immersion. Of course, it’d be hard to justify the $300-$400 asking price. VR devs are all content on making these simple arcade style games with simple graphics that can run on the Quest 2.
The problem is the size of the potential player base. A VR headset for $300-500 (and that’s on the low end) is already a big ask for one game, but then you also need a gaming PC. To get the full fat immersive experience you’ll need a fairly beefy PC (3070 or better, 11th gen Intel or 3000 series AMD CPU etc) and a Valve Index ($1000 iirc). The costs add up very quickly, and that’s a huge barrier to entry for a lot of people. That’s also why the Quest 2 is such a common target for development: it’s relatively more affordable and as a result has a much bigger install base.
There’s also a whole slew of physical space issues with being tied to a computer that the standalone headsets solves, but that’s a broader argument beyond the cost of the headset itself.
A lot of these issues can be solved by remote streaming. The full fat immersive experience becomes far more manageable if instead of trying to cram a beefy Snapdragon SoC into a complicated headset, you just make the headset be a dedicated streaming device and then focus on bringing the price down to $200. Think Quest 2 but all it needs have is enough logic to do tracking and video decoders to process video streams.
a big ask for one game
That’s just a chicken and egg problem though. We don’t have a good library of PCVR titles so people find it hard to justify buying a PCVR headset. Nobody makes PCVR titles because they think no one’s buying the headset, etc. I feel like a lot of people think PCVR won’t work because the overall setup is too expensive. However, I think there’s enough PC players who already have a gaming PC who would gladly drop an extra $200 on another peripheral if the game library was there.
There are multiple games that wouldn’t be the same without VR. A Township Tale, Gorilla Tag, Echo VR. None of these would be nearly as fun without VR. The biggest issue with VR is probably the lack of some more linear story driven AAA games that many people are used to. And you don’t need to invest several thousand dollars for VR. Stand-alone VR with the quest has been a thing for years
You’re kind of making my point for me here. The games that exist for VR don’t really add anything that didn’t already exist but with less convenient controls. A Township Tale is fundamentally just an MMO in VR, and we have already have dozens of MMOs that are easier to play. Similarly, we have a ton of story-based games on other platforms that work perfectly well. VR as a medium doesn’t really do anything for the gaming experience in those cases.
Games that make use of the inherently different interaction modalities of VR, like Beat Saber and Gorilla Tag, show some promise in terms of new ways of playing games. That kind of interaction is really interesting and brings something new to the table. Unfortunately, they’re also effortful to play and as such are generally difficult to play for extended periods of time. To some extent they all become exergames. Since they also need a fair amount of space to play there’s a certain barrier to entry for playing them.
I think the the standalone headsets are the future of VR, mostly due to the lower instep to get started. I even own a Quest 2 that I play sometimes (admittedly mostly Beat Saber and Ragnarock). However, the standalone VR headsets are also kind of limited in terms of computational power, so there’s some competition from the casual and mobile market. The mobile (and console, and PC) platforms also don’t have the added baggage of physical excersion that comes with VR, which makes them more accessible than VR.
Again, there really isn’t much of a case for VR beyond exergames. Games being VR can be a selling point for the true believers in VR, but for most people it’s kind of a fun experience that isn’t very meaningful.
A township tale is fun because of the fact that you use your hands for everything. Putting tools together, hammering nails in, fighting monsters, that’s what differentiates it from other MMOs. I don’t see a problem with VR games being physically exerting, less people sitting in a chair playing games is a good thing. In fact the physical nature of it is what makes it fun. I don’t see VR as the future of gaming or anything, I see it as another way to play. Just like I prefer keyboard and mouse for shooters and controller for platformers. The games I play in VR are games I wouldn’t like in a traditional format. The interactivity and immersion of VR is impossible to replicate in a normal game. That doesn’t mean normal games don’t have their place, they obviously do and I don’t think VR should replace them.
Yeah I really wish PCVR was still alive and well instead of the stagnant industry that it currently is. I bought both a Rift S and a Quest 2 thinking that full-length story driven games were going to become a thing, but then the hardware limitations of standalone kinda killed that. Now I don’t really have any interest in buying a Quest 3 or a Vision Pro because I don’t have any faith that there’s going to be developers making those kinds of experiences anymore.
I don’t get why games can optimize for mobile hardware but can’t just give lower graphics settings on PC for some reason. Maybe stand-alone wouldn’t have been such a big thing if they had done that
Removed by mod
Not for owners, for sure - but for prospective ones? The catalogue of possible games/uses is a bit thin for a 1k+ piece of kit… I think it would be incredible to own a HOTAS warthog but I’m not playing flying games very often right now, you know?
If I did, I probably would because at that point I want to enjoy the kit I have. Imo, that means right now, a flight sim controller set up due my use case is a bit of a gimmick - but if I already owned it I’d seek out things to utilise it, reducing its gimmicky position in ‘the roster’.
Gimmicky is kind of a subjective term in that way, it’s all about the individual utility offered.
But yeah - that comment was a bit snarky, I get that too.
But…it doesn’t have to be a whole-ass lifestyle, even right now with the current state of VR. Even with an Oculus Quest 2, you just put on the headset, play an hour or so, and then put the headset down like a normal person.
The marketing teams at Meta and Apple want to market it as a lifestyle because that’s the only way they know how to promote it without going into the nerdy weeds of VR game design, etc., but from a consumer perspective, it’s only a lifestyle if you choose to make it your lifestyle.
Nah, that’s a prequel. What everyone wants is a conclusion to the cliffhanger that the current Half-Life story ended on. Good game though!
We need Half-Life 2: Episode 3, and then Half-Life 3.
At this point I’m half-expecting Half-Life 4 to shadow-drop some day before 3 ever does.
This
I dont think mastodon would, but i think lemmy kbin would. The target audience is different, one is twitter and the other is reddit like. I dont think twitter user hate fb as much as we do.
They always did strike me as idiots
Idiots maybe but probably wealthy idiots once Meta is done with them.
Being stupid always costs more than being lucky makes.
This is an extremely weird ass take to have. Why would the average user give a shit?
Compared to most problems people have, the intricacies of social media platforms is not high on a lot of people’s list. They just go where the content is.
What a very insufferable opinion to have lol.
Like god damn, I knew that the early adopters will have the hardcore with em, but some of you guys need to relax.
I’ve been radicalized by corporate social media’s deliberate harm, what can I say.
I’m right there with you. I can already foresee that their apps will be prioritizing monetized users like content creators and everything in there will be a transaction of some sort. Who cares, you just have to block their instances and go about your merry way.
I absolutely support not allowing the ZuckFuck and his corporate shills any access to the fediverse. Defederate them!
we need to force defederation from thread’s
I thought I would just chime in here if I am allowed. I looked for an official Facebook lemmy but couldn’t find one.
I have become a bit satisfied with Facebook as of late. They used to allow tools for embedding social pages into private websites and whilst technically they still do their level of support for such seems to have plummeted to non existent. I don’t know if that is a conscious effort by Meta to close down forum support or whether it is because they are moving more towards a “pay to play” business model. This in, my opinion, suddenly erects a huge barrier to entry, to even get started developing with their platform. It would seem to me it would have been more prudent, as a business model, to provide free support to get started but start charging when their products are established or at least have some way to talk to a support person.
What I am saying, in a roundabout way, is maybe the world is ready for a decent alternative, even in the business space, and Facebook no longer seems to be it. I really can’t understand how their support has collapsed so badly for developers.
is there a good twitter app out there instead of the original for android?
If I start seeing meta on here, I’ll leave. I left facebook over a decade ago, and want nothing to do with it. This seems like an obvious no brainer.
deleted by creator
The corpos ruined everything, don’t let them do it again.
I’m having trouble conceptualizing the attack strategies here. I also lack much understanding of what (exactly, precisely, at the technical level) federation is so I don’t understand how defederation is a defense against those attacks.
Would someone help me break this down conceptually? Are there any analogies? Is this like closing the gate of a castle? Is it like quarantining infected people? Like blocking a phone number? Not loaning someone money?
Please don’t just say “yes to all those analogies”. I’m casting about for understanding here.
How can I better understand OP’s argument here? (I have a background in tech and understand passwords, certificates, signatures, etc if that helps). Is email a federated thing? What’s federation precisely?
Layman here, from what I gather it sounds like federation is like one of those cups connected by lines. Federation is the equivalent of having a line connected to the web of cups and strings. Then suddenly a big cup provider comes into the mix, which at first seems great since there are more people communicating through cups. However, due to their bigger resources they greatly outpace the rest of the web, offering fancier cups and stronger wire, resulting in people moving to their cups. Then one day they cut the connections to all other cups but theirs; while the original web is still intact, the remaining users are essentially cut off from most of the cups they were connected for.
By defederating instances are basically (but probably not as effectively as Meta would) cutting that string before they get the chance to infiltrate the web.
Idk though once again I know very little
For “knowing very little”, you fucking nailed that analogy. That’s exactly what Instagram is trying to pull here.
So the attack is to migrate people across that connection into their space, then sever the connection, resulting in a loss of people here.
That doesn’t worry me too much. I personally am here because I’ve had bad experiences with being silenced in big centrally-controlled places. And for me, if the only people who remain here are the ones who really despise those big special cups, I’m fine with that because I like the idea of a community of other outcasts.
But thank you for explaining the specific danger: loss of content creators into the fancier places.
I’m still curious about how those strings are implemented at the information security level.
And the fancier cups/stronger or bigger wire that Meta has the resources to build is the “Extend” part of EEE where their instance seems better than all the others, so inevitably some users (i.e. humans) will migrate if anything but out of sheer convenience. And then when it’s convenient, Meta defederated, closes the data channels, and people are left in their convenient instance where they are happy with the content being fed to them. Meanwhile, Meta uses all the tactics in the book to make the rest of the fediverse seem like the dark web to scare away non-technical users.
Definitely a scary thought.
Defederation is definitely the play here at first because it doesn’t give Meta a chance to Extend, but it does rely on the admins making that decision and holding that position for as long as Meta exists on the fediverse.
Can we hold? Depends on ideals, money, effort, and time.
I know that I as a user will just choose the next biggest instance to jump to as soon as the biggest instance ever federates with any corpo platform. It’ll take more and more effort to vet more and more instances over time, but it’s worth it.
Someone has explained the basic Embrace, Extend, Extinguish strategy below, but I also want to comment on my own “Embrace, Extend, Consume” idea, as well as the other issues that come with Facebook.
Embrace, Extend, Consume is like Embrace, Extend, Extinguish except the end goal isn’t complete annihilation of the target. Instead of defederating at the endpoint, Meta/FB just dominates the entire standard, and anyone who steps out of line is forced into a miniscule network of others. They can then use this dominant position to buy out or consume large instances, or for example, force data collection features into the standard and aggressively defederate anyone else who doesn’t comply >.<
In this way, they consume the network entirely, which doesn’t necessarily destroy the communities but essentially borgifies them and renders people unable to leave.
The other component specific to facebook is their long and continued history of engaging in what essentially amounts to large-scale psychological manipulation and information warfare towards it’s various goals (money, total domination of human communication, subsuming the internet in countries where the infrastructure is still too small to resist a single corporation restricting it’s content, political manipulation, collection of ever more data, etc.).
They have well over a decade of experience in this, hundreds of times more users, and untold amounts of labour, research and other resources have been poured specifically into figuring out the most effective ways to manipulate social groups via techniques like astroturfing, algorithmic prioritization, and more sophisticated strategies I am not aware of. All backed by data from literally billions of human beings >.<
This means that exposing the Fediverse to Facebook/Meta is essentially exposing us all to one of the most organised and sophisticated information warfare machines that has ever been created. Cutting off the strings (as in the other analogy by @[email protected]) not only protects from direct EEE/EEC, but also makes it harder for Meta/Facebook to influence, dominate, and consume the conversation here, either by sheer user-mass, or by malicious information warfare (or even unintentional consequences of their algorithms), or by a combination of both.
For hypothetical examples on how this might work - in reality it might be different in specific, these are just illustrative:
- Meta/FB could start a campaign (maybe astroturfed) for “user safety”, where they encourage people to distrust users from smaller instances or any user with their instance address marker not on
@threads.<whatever their url> - Meta/FB could add “secure messaging” (lol, it’s facebook), but only between threads users. Then they could push the idea that ActivityPub is bad for privacy (the DMs are so just use Matrix ;p, but if you post stuff publicly, it makes sense that it’s public).
- Meta/FB could by simple user mass result in most communities being on Threads. People tend to drift towards more populous communities about the same topic, in general, and Threads unbalances the user ratios so much that everyone would just go to those >.< (as opposed to right now, where we have similar sized communities on several large instances, where most people subscribe to most of them)
- Meta/FB could use social engineering to push for changes to the ActivityPub protocol that are harder for other ActivityPub servers to implement ^.^, or even ones that are hard for non-proprietary clients to implement.
I think I miss something, the ActivityPub protocol is not owned or maintained by Mastodon devs. Isn’t this just standard communication like an extension of HTTP? something like GraphQL (that created by Facebook itself). Quick google mentioned that ActivityPub is maintained by W3C.
So Meta can (and I think currently uses) ActivityPub, and all of your points already been possible without needing to federates with any other instances. For example, they already can say that ActivityPub doesn’t work on some cases, and push W3C to do some changes on the standard
I think the critical difference is “Meta pushes for changes” vs “Meta pushes for changes with the support of thousands/millions of users”.
If Meta convinces Thread users that a certain change is good for them, it’s going to be that much harder for the people developing ActivityPub to push back on those changes. And even if the developers succeed, Meta can just use that to say “fine, we’ll fork off and make our own ActivityPub with data collection and advertisements” and if enough instances in the Fediverse are reliant one Threads for engagement they may just switch to the Meta version of ActivityPub, taking a chunk of our community with them.
And maybe that’s alright for some folks, but a lot of us don’t want any of that to happen, even potentially. I think it’s pretty unethical to deliver people into the maw of the beast like that, so to speak.
So it’s like opening a wormhole to the borg homeworld. Not worth the effects of contact.
- Meta/FB could start a campaign (maybe astroturfed) for “user safety”, where they encourage people to distrust users from smaller instances or any user with their instance address marker not on
I’d like to go against the grain and be against defederating. I have so many friends who couldnt give less of a fuck about this stuff and because I care I am forced to isolate myself from all their mainstream services. I would love for once to be able to see the same posts they see and share stuff with them and maybe show them that its not so bad over here.
Lolol this thread and the rest are pure compium without a plan.
Without monetization this place is DoA. Either step up, start a non profit e.g Mozilla foundation, and start charging users and hitting staff.
Otherwise you’re post is going to the void, accomplishing nothing.
Server performance: garbage Comment: garbage
I only joined Lemmy because of its open source, non-manipulative, not-for-profit nature. If Meta joins it will be a good reason for me to quit. Hell, even Reddit would be better than a Fediverse with Meta IMO.
Hopefully .world decides to defederate Threads and Meta, but if they refuse you can migrate to another instance that does defederate them. The solution here should be to refuse Meta, not give up on Lemmy and the Fediverse.
They won’t be able to bribe every instance without making it known to the world but another mass migration even if within the same federation would discourage a lot of new users from joining/staying though.
This makes me so fucking angry that these fuckers wouldn’t even let us have a small corner of the internet to ourselves.
“People joining the Fediverse are those looking for freedom. If people are not ready or are not looking for freedom, that’s fine. They have the right to stay on proprietary platforms. We should not force them into the Fediverse. We should not try to include as many people as we can at all cost. We should be honest and ensure people join the Fediverse because they share some of the values behind it.”
Who gets to appoint the gatekeepers?
I actually support making it easier for people to join the Fediverse. For instance, by having each instance compile lists of other instances which self-determine the kinds of topics they want and pointing new users to instances that are less overloaded, and by making the signup process easier, and improving UI. Letting Facebook consume us and destroy us via EEE is not that.
The “gatekeepers” are the people willing to set up instances ^.^.
The gatekeepers are the instance mods/admins. The model is known to have problems…unfortunately, it’s the best option we have IMO
The OP wasn’t speaking for their server though they were speaking for the fediverse. Everyone should be able to run their server how they see fit but don’t speak for other people.
I don’t know, I think we have a responsibility to eachother to keep the Fediverse ecosystem healthy - Facebook/Meta isn’t exactly a humanist… well, anything.
I think it’s fair the white blood cells of our ‘body’ are calling for re-enforcements on this.
