I would like to know if I can feel safe here, or if I should pack it up and start looking elsewhere sooner rather than later.
If the kbin staff have already made there intentions clear, please let me know.
I would like to know if I can feel safe here, or if I should pack it up and start looking elsewhere sooner rather than later.
If the kbin staff have already made there intentions clear, please let me know.
Why would KBin be unsafe?
Federation works by instances (e.g. kbin.social) registering an interest (subscribe/follow) in a specific magazine or person on other instances.
That means content is only brought into an instance that members of that instance are interested in (its the same with lemmy instances, we don’t see everything).
Similarly on kbin users can block individuals, magazines or whole domains. So even if kbin.social does federate with meta you don’t have to see/interact with it.
For instance I respect kbin users might want content from lemmy.ml, as the people who run it are tankies I have no interest in anything from that instance and block the domain.
I have no issues with part of the fediverse walling itself off from meta but remaining in contact with other instances. Similar to how beehaw defederated from lemmy.world but kbin could see beehaw and lemmy.world.
I would treat meta like any other instance, if its a source of headache then deferate.
The Embrace, Extend Extinguish argument makes no sense.
Take C#, many years ago Microsoft wanted to build its own Java JDK. As part of that they added Microsoft specific extensions. Sun said that wasn’t acceptable. Microsoft didn’t just stop, the renamed it C# and launched the product.
Everyone agreeing to defederate from meta won’t mean they stop. It won’t prevent EEE.
The best way to prevent EEE is given in our example. Java had a huge userbase who simply weren’t interested in migrating.
So you need to encourage organisations to deploy KBin/Lemmy instances which integrate with the fediverse. That gives them reach and when Meta tries EEE they cut off content their users want. So it forces them to be a good citizen.
What OP did not mention is the fedipact. There are seemingly admins of the fediverse signing an NDA with facebook. The fedipact is about admins swearing that they will never federate with facebook.
So of course if an admin signs an agreement with facebook and changes the conditions, the protocol, benefits from credits to improve the infra then it’s a different threat and different debate.
Federating with Meta without an agreement is a laughable science fiction scenario, but federating with an agreement is dangerous for the users.
If we federate with meta then our instance will simply stop responding because of the workload alone.
No. If we are talking about the EEE side of things then we must defederate. If facebook federates with the intention of EEE then they will ALSO bribe the admins.
The code for mastodon, lemmy and kbin is open source and has been forked hundreds of times.
Admins can do whatever they like and people can build and deploy their own instance and enforce their own rules.
This is one of the key strengths of open source, people have forked projects took them in their own direction and had success.
Similarly ActivityPub is documented as a W3 standard, having read the standard the biggest weakness is the number of instances, not the size of the instances.
Also @mod I meant to hit reply and hit report and can’t see how to revoke