I just read this point in a comment and wanted to bring it to the spotlight.

Meta has practically unlimited resources. They will make access to the fediverse fast with their top tier servers.

As per my understanding this will make small instances less desirable to the common user. And the effects will be:

  1. Meta can and will unethically defedrate from instances which are a theat to them. Which the majority of the population won’t care about, again making the small instances obsolete.
  2. When majority of the content is on the Meta servers they can and will provide fast access to it and unethically slow down access to the content from outside instances. This will be noticeable but cannot be proved, and in the end the common users just won’t care. They will use Threads because its faster.

This is just what i could think of, there are many more ways to be evil. Meta has the best engineers in the world who will figure out more discrete and impactful ways to harm the small instances.

Privacy: I know they can scrape data from the fediverse right now. That’s not a problem. The problem comes when they launch their own Android / iOS app and collect data about my search and what kind of Camel milk I like.

My thoughts: I think building our own userbase is better than federating with an evil corp. with unlimited resources and talent which they will use to destroy the federation just to get a few users.

I hope this post reaches the instance admins. The Cons outweigh the Pros in this case.

We couldn’t get the people to use Signal. This is our chance to make a change.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    141 year ago

    I’m hoping that ALL admins across the Fediverse will defederate from Meta. At least we get to have our own separate platform then.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They shouldn’t just defederate from Meta, they should defederate from any other instances that federate with Meta. Like a firewall against late stage capitalism

      • Mario Bariša
        link
        fedilink
        English
        5
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        But that is a double-edged sword. What if, for example, mastodon.social doesn’t defederate with Meta, but you defederate mastodon.social? Now you’ve just cut yourself off from a huge portion of the fediverse. Admins should defederate from Meta if their community wants to do that, but defederating from other instances that didn’t do that is going a bit too far, in my opinion.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Why? If you have blocked meta shouldn’t you already be exempt from seeing comments and posts by their users on other instances? Why is this punitive approach needed

        Edit: (Alongside downvoting, an explanation might be better suited to change people’s minds, I just eant to know the advantage of this approach since you are excluding yourself from many users and you would have already blocked meta in this scenario)

        • Spzi
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          If you have blocked meta shouldn’t you already be exempt from seeing comments and posts by their users on other instances?

          Yes, at least that’s how it is explained in How the beehaw defederation affects us, Back then, beehaw.org defederated from lemmy.world.

          Why do I see posts/comments from beehaw users on communities outside lemmy.world and beehaw.org?

          That’s because the “true” version of those posts is outside beehaw. So we get updates from those posts. And lemmy.world didn’t defederate beehaw, so posts/comments from beehaw users can still come to versions hosted on lemmy.world.

          The reverse is not true. Because beehaw defederate lemmy.world, any post/comment from a lemmy.world users will NOT be sent to the beehaw version of the post.

          Third instance communities

          Finally, we have the example of communities that are on instances that have not been defederated by beehaw.org.

          We can see all three of these versions look pretty similar. That’s because for the most part they are. We are identical with lemmy.ml, as lemmy.ml hosts the “true” version, and we get all updates from the “true” version. Beehaw.org will not get posts/comments from us, so beehaw actually doesn’t have the most “true” version of this community.

          Translated into the current context:

          • beehaw.org = your instance, which defederates from Threads
          • lemmy.world = Threads (sorry folks, just to eplain the mechanics)
          • lemmy.ml = another instance, which is federated with both, your instance and Threads

          Conclusions:

          • You wont see posts or commens from Threads users in that remote community. You also won’t see reactions to those activities from anyone, anywhere. It’s as if comment chains started by Threads users don’t exist.
          • Threads will not see posts and comments from you, even if done in communities from instances which are federated with Threads.

          Or what do you think, @[email protected]?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      That will just drive many Fedi-users to Meta.

      Different instances will make different decisions and users will go to the instances that suit their preferences. That’a how it is supposed to work and the only way it hurts the Fediverse is if we get flooded with threads complaining that other people have different preference, dammit.

      • Calcharger
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Do you really want the Instagram crowd to interact with us…?

          • Leraje
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Based on your posts so far my friend, its becoming clearer why you think there’s no one to interact with.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        I don’t see why this would hurt us. But even if it did, I would rather take the blow than associate with Big Tech again.

      • TaleOfSam
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Meta willingly under-moderated across large swaths of east Asia and Africa, leading to unchecked rumors and tangible acts of genocide. Zuckerberg has compared himself to Augustus Caesar.

        I think it’s acceptable to cut off a wildfire before it spreads.

        • CyanPurple
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Gotta love the fact Meta contributed to how my country got a murderer and the son of a dictator as presidents. Real great and trustworthy company there /s

          • masterspace
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

            I’m not asking you to trust them, I’m asking how defederating accomplishes anything? They got more users than the entire fediverse in a single day. We are not hurting them by cutting them off, we are merely making the fediverse seem more like a barren hostile place for a bunch of weirdo nerds.

            • manitcor
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              FB is a known source for targeted misinfo campaigns. If I log into those services right now Im pretty much gaurenteed to have misinfo on my landing page.

              why federate with that?

            • CyanPurple
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              Defederating means not interacting with the crowd Meta brings in. I have a bunch of other reasons but that’s my main one. And before you suggest blocking, you can’t possibly expect me to block all 10M of their users and the domain block is bugged. I know because I tried.

              Besides, this place doesn’t look like much of a barren wasteland since we’re interacting with a bunch of people right now. I don’t mind interacting with only weirdo nerds if they’re nicer people. Quantity doesn’t mean quality after all.

              For the people who want to interact with Threads because of family and friends, they should just make an account there. Just don’t let Meta destroy this small part of the internet.

            • snooggums
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              The goal is not to hurt meta, but to keep meta from hurting the rest of the federated sites. Like not inviting a known their to the community barbecue because they are known to have stolen tons of food from other community meals. We aren’t keeping them from creating their own dinner or anything by not federating, just keeping them away from ours.

              • masterspace
                link
                fedilink
                -11 year ago

                Except in this analogy, Meta hasn’t stolen food before. They run the largest bbq around, and have bought out previous corporate competitor bbqs, and now they’re hosting a giant bbq one way or another, they’re just suggesting you put a gate in the fence so that people can flow back and forth between the small community bbq and their large corporate one.

                Is that going to make you nervous since they have such a cool giant bbq that people are inevitably going to want to go there? Yeah, but again, that’s the case regardless of whether or not the gate goes in.

                • snooggums
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  Shilling for Meta is a bad look.

                  They steal people’s data and don’t follow data privacy laws. They draw people in with unethical business practices, not fair competition like in your example.

                  People are not worried about people using Meta outside of the fediverse. In your analogy Meta is already easily accessible through the internet in general and people can feel free to use both without needing a special gate.

                  • masterspace
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -11 year ago

                    Shilling for Meta is a bad look.

                    Does it look like I care whether or not I agree with the hive mind?

                    They draw people in with unethical business practices, not fair competition like in your example.

                    My example included them buying out their competition which is not fair, it’s blatantly anti-competitive. Fairness has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

                    People are not worried about people using Meta outside of the fediverse. In your analogy Meta is already easily accessible through the internet in general and people can feel free to use both without needing a special gate.

                    And in my example the gate doesn’t harm the fediverse at all, it just makes it more convenient for users of both bbqs, being my entire point. There is nothing to be lost by federating with Meta.

        • masterspace
          link
          fedilink
          01 year ago

          Lemmy is run by a bunch of tankies and the entire fediverse is under-moderated.

          Cutting off a ton of users and content from the fediverse is stupid and everyone in here just keeps coming up with vague generalities because they’re scared of Meta rather than have actually thought through what will happen and be able to articulate any actual harms.

          • Marxine
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            “Boo hoo tankies bad, but big corpo run by billionaires who spread misinformation and intentionally act to topple legitimate governments in favor of their fascist agenda are akshually good”

            Arguing with people like you (corporate shill) is a waste of time, so I’d rather have fun instead.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            The reactions you are seeing are based off of Metas history. We will see how it works out.

          • icydefiance
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

            People have articulated all kinds of actual harms, including two possibilities in the OP, but frankly they’re irrelevant.

            We know what Meta’s goals are, and we know they have absolutely no moral standards whatsoever. Exactly how they try to accomplish those goals doesn’t matter. We shouldn’t give them the opportunity to try anything.

            We should be scared of Meta, and we should keep them as far away as possible. Anything else is reckless and stupid at best.

            • masterspace
              link
              fedilink
              01 year ago

              People have articulated all kinds of actual harms, including two possibilities in the OP, but frankly they’re irrelevant.

              No, they didn’t. The harm listed was that Meta will make a shinier platform that will syphon away users, that is happening regardless and is not a harm that is a result of federation, it’s a harm that’s a result of meta having more money to build a better platform.

              We know what Meta’s goals are, and we know they have absolutely no moral standards whatsoever. Exactly how they try to accomplish those goals doesn’t matter. We shouldn’t give them the opportunity to try anything.

              There goal is to launch a twitter competitor with a lot of users and make money off advertising. Nothing about that conflicts with the fediverse.

              Like I said, this thread is filled with a bunch of people shaking in their boots about the company who must not be named rather than actually providing sober rational assessment of what’s likely to happen.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                01 year ago

                Yeah, you think they give a shit about the fediverse? They’re using ActivityPub because it’s easier for them. They’re not going to want to EEE us, because there’s not enough of us to matter to them.

                • icydefiance
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  It’s not easier for them, and once there’s enough people to matter then it’s too late to kill it. The fediverse is growing, and they want to stop that before the fediverse is big enough to matter.

              • icydefiance
                link
                fedilink
                -11 year ago

                that is happening regardless and is not a harm that is a result of federation

                Yes, it is. Read this: https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html

                There goal is to launch a twitter competitor with a lot of users and make money off advertising.

                They can do that without integrating with the fediverse. The reason they’re going to integrate with the fediverse is to embrace, extend, and extinguish.

                • masterspace
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  Yeah, I’ve read that, and it’s not an example of a corporation killing a decentralized network through federation, it’s just a normal example of a corporation killing a decentralized network by having more money to make a better app.

                  XMPP did not die because Google used that protocol, it died because people preferred using Google Talk over any of the XMPP apps. That would be the case regardless of whether Google used XMPP or not.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -30
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Growth at any cost is the mindset that not only ruins anything good for profit, it is also the exact issue we are facing now in real life with the right gaining traction in many liberal and multicultural democracies.

        Because everyone is being let in, without a second thought on if they even should be there, we now have massive social issues with not at all integrated subcultures in Europe that embrace values diametrically opposed to our tolerant and pluralist societies, in turn empowering the right to ruin any progress made in an effort to throw out the brown people again.

        The right question to ask is not “can we accept this new member to our society?”, the right question is “should we accept this new member into our society based on their beliefs and values, based on if they can contribute anything to the existing society?”

        And to return to the matter at hand, this is what the fediverse is supposed to be. A bunch of communities and little realms, each with their own rules and interests but united in their belief that self determination and democratic structures make for a better and more fair internet. And then we have the meta intruder we are about to welcome with open arms, without any rules or expectations of him to adopt our values and culture, so they bring their own, corporate, centralized culture and use their money to brute force that culture into every place of importance.

        It is not racist or intolerant of societies to expect newcomers to assimilate, and ignoring that fact brought us a re emerging right.

        And it is not fearmongering or small minded to be extremely sceptical of Facebook trying to establish themselves in the fediverse, they are literally the OG data and privacy violating corporation, they invented echo chambers and connecting extremists. There is zero value to the fediverse in welcoming meta. The only one who wins if that happens is meta.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          01 year ago

          Exactly. Facebook is a known bad actor. There is absolutely no reason to believe their intentions are anything but evil. Pretending Threads is just another instance is both naive and dangerous. It is a cancer. If allowed to federate, it will metastacize.

          • masterspace
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Facebook is not evil, advertising is.

            The people at Facebook aren’t sitting there plotting to make the world worse, they’re just sitting there figuring out how to make the numbers go up and since they’re an advertising driven business, that means engagement metrics, which leads to the vast majority of their resultant evil. The advertising / engagement driven business model is what is actually evil and what could actually be addressed by legislators.