• Kushan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s worth pointing out that the wiki article lists several examples of Microsoft using this approach but I wouldn’t class many of them as successful.

      • Steeve@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not only was it not very successful, it’s an old outdated Microsoft playbook from the 90s/early 00s and was targeted at closed source competitors and freeware, not open source software where you can just fork out a separate version.

        By all means block Meta instances if you want, but they have 3 billion users, they definitely don’t give a shit about a “competitor” with a few hundred thousand users. If simply the presence of a corporation in the Fediverse is enough to destroy it, then it wasn’t going to last long anyways. It’s embarassing that “embrace, extend, extinguish” caught on around here just because it’s a catchy alliteration.

        • catastrophicblues@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Let me offer a rebuttal. The fact that this playbook even exists and is well-known is a cause for concern. Yes, Microsoft’s campaign wasn’t very successful, but that doesn’t mean Meta won’t try or learn from Microsoft’s mistakes. I ask: is the probability of this happening non-zero, and if so, is it lower than you’re comfortable with? For me, and many others here, that answer is no.

          Moreover, this is a greater problem: Meta is well-known and has practically infinite marketing budget. They can spin their app as the de facto, causing many people to lose control of their data. By association, some people will blame the Fediverse and not Meta. Defederating signals that we are not willing to participate with them and tells potential Fediverse users that they will not be able to engage with us—and whatever they decide, we cannot impact more.

          The crux of my argument is risk management. Defederated is a conservative measure to prevent possible issues in the future.

          • Steeve@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Honestly this is just pure paranoia because nobody has given a solid reason as to why they would give a single shit about the few hundred thousand users here. Your only argument is “well it exists, so maaaybe they’ll use it but better” which has no basis. As for losing control of your data, you have no control of your data here. It’s public information. Any person, corporation, computer literate cat, etc can already scrape everything you post here. Don’t mistake anonymity for data privacy.

            Like I said, block em, defederate, whatever measures you want to take are an option, but for the love of god let’s just stop parroting nonsense at eachother because it sounds clever. I came here to get away from reddit culture.

            • PopularUsername@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I just wanted to say, I am by no means technical but your position is exactly what I was thinking, if an open source project can’t survive when it’s competitors start using it, then it’s never going to survive. The whole point is for it to be interoperable, resilient, and antifragile, and there are plenty of open source projects that achieved that. Competitors switching over to open source is a natural progression of any open source project if one assumes it is successful.

        • redcalcium@c.calciumlabs.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          By all means block Meta instances if you want, but they have 3 billion users, they definitely don’t give a shit about a “competitor” with a few hundred thousand users.

          If they don’t give a shit then why do they add federation feature at all? It doesn’t make sense.

          • Steeve@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Right now it’s only supported for Instagram accounts right? So slap in ActivityPub and you’ve got an already working way to extend your app. It’s easy, it’s fast development, and it’s cheap. It makes tons of sense.

            Also, Meta and the rest of FAANG are a company of a bunch of nerds with a history of open sourcing software. This isn’t some crazy play, this is completely normal for them.

        • app_priori@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly. Which is why I believe that all this fearmongering is because of Meta’s reputation (rightfully so) rather than because Meta actually has a plan to destroy the fediverse. And it’s not the like the fediverse can be actually destroyed, people can always start new instances at any time.

          • massacre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            My take was that most people 1) don’t want Meta/Facebook spam - low effort memes, propaganda, etc. and 2) don’t want their content to be used by Meta. The former seems pretty easy - just defederate and you don’t see any of their crap. The second is sort of a gray area… Whether or not you are diametrically opposed to Meta/Facebook or not, once you post your content to a public site, it’s available. I haven’t been here long, but defederation seems to work both ways, so FB would have to scrape content from known instances to get that content unless I’m mistaken.

            FB could smoke any instance by DDOSing scrapes whether intended or otherwise, but once you post your data on a public forum, Meta could theoretically use it.

            But to your comment - I don’t see what starting a new instance would do for anyone for #2. Any new instance is discoverable by nature, so FB can come knocking at any time for content whether you defederate or not.

            • app_priori@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago
              1. As if Lemmy currently isn’t overrun with low effort memes? Have you seen all those cans of beans running amok here?
              2. I imagine there are many parties already scraping content from the fediverse as we speak - that’s the nature of public web content.
            • Lemmino@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              As far as (1) goes, 90% of the content on Lemmy is just a Lemmy circlejerk, the remaining 10% is memes. What influx of “low effort content” could possibly make the discussions on Lemmy worse than they already are?

              As far as (2) goes, you realize your data on Lemmy is open to everyone to scrape, not just Meta? Every single one of your upvotes is public.

    • OverfedRaccoon 🦝@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It looks like articles today are saying that Meta is delaying integrating ActivityPub at launch.

      That said, I’m not seeing how we get to the last E, extinguish. By its very nature, ActivityPub is decentralized to avoid total control. So even if Meta embraces the technology and wants to monetize it (because capitalism, of course), extending ActivityPub would (hypothetically) be open source - or they would fork it, diverging and making their version closed, and otherwise not function in full with other ActivityPub instances (like with kbin, Lemmy, and Mastodon). Without buying the platform from the developers in full, I don’t see how ActivityPub or the greater Fediverse dies. And I could just be missing something obvious, so if you can explain how we get there, I would really like to hear and understand.

      I guess the only way I could see it is if Threads got so popular that people literally stopped using the other apps - but I also don’t see that happening, because anyone already using stuff like Mastodon are using it because Twitter, Facebook, etc, suck ass and they’ve moved away from sites like that.

      EDIT: Thanks to the one person that actually replied, I saw I was on the right track at the end, but failed to see the obvious (as I assumed).

      • blueshades@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s hard to predict but the extinguish part would come from bigger non-Threads instances implementing compatibility with Thread-only extensions (in the interest of their users, or for money) and fragmenting the community. Threads then becomes the defacto ActivityPub standard. Maybe some instances stay true to the standard but with extremely reduced communities because now they can’t see what other instances are publishing. So now you have to decide between your ideals and your social network. At best, you’re back to square 0.

        • Hotzilla@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It happens in the extend part.

          Large corporation will have much more resources, they will implement features and refactoring, which small open source teams do not have capability to implement. They will start pulling users because they support features that other do not.

          This also means that they will start getting control.

          And then finally they just cut the communication, and split the community. All the way they can claim to be working “for the community”

    • Magiwarriorx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I doubt that is the plan. The Fediverse is tiny, even after the recent growth. Prior to June it was basically just Mastodon, and I doubt Meta is agile enough to start this from scratch in response to the June growth. This is a lot of effort to take down a competitor that’s widely considered to be rough around the edges, and is only just now hitting 2m active monthly users.

      Realistically Threads has been in the works for a while as a way to eat Twitter’s market share while Twitter destroys itself. I suspect they see value in the ActivityPub protocol in the same way Yahoo saw value in email in the 90s. Regardless of whether EEE is their intention or not, Meta’s presence in the Fediverse is going to have major implications for its long term stability.

      EDIT: on further reflection, I suspect the value they see is pressuring other would-be competitors to also implement ActivityPub. I suspect they do genuinely want to grow the Fediverse… because doing so would increase the amount of data they could collect and sell from it.

      • Hotzilla@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        On embrace phase the intention is not malicious, they probably want things to grow. Corporations just in long run will eventually lead to someone asking “how can we capitalize this” and this lead the FOSS part of things to be cut out, and destroying the protocol at that point.

        Fediverse should defederate every corporation and just grow naturally.

    • Trebach@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can only do that if you’re an admin. The post is for those on an instance that doesn’t/won’t defederate from Threads.

  • teri@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Spontaneous idea of how to use copyright law for keeping Meta out of the Fediverse (more for fun):

    Introduction: Parts of the Fediverse, including Mastodon, are software licensed under the APGL license. This license is a great choice because it forces the ones running the software to grant users access to the source code. GPL for example would allow to run proprietary services based on GPL code. The AGPL does not. Companies like Meta and Google will likely not use AGPL code because it might force them to also publish their proprietary systems behind the scenes. However, this does not help much for keeping the Fediverse save. They simply implement their own software which will not be open source.

    Therefore we may need another approach. Defederating is the simplest and in my opinion currently the best. It’s easy and keeps people in control.

    However, there could be some ‘automatic’ approach using copyright law. It’s a hack which allows to use existing law to regulate the way instances can federate.:

    • instances would Federate only if the other side can provide a certain piece of information called X
    • X is protected by copyright law, therefore by default, instances are not allowed to provide X
    • However, X is released under a license which for permits to copy and distribute X under certain conditions
    • The conditions allow to tune who can legally federate
    • Conditions could be
      • The server software must be AGPL licensed
      • The instance must not be owned by a company with a certain amount of annual revenue

    Open question is, who owns the copyright of X?

  • ShankedMyJengaShip@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    My first reaction is this sounds like a great way to onboard more folks into the fediverse - but is this a perhaps a paradox of intolerance? Does Meta as a corporate entity have a natural intolerance to the freeness and openness of the fediverse, and if so, does it need to be violently rejected?

    • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t understand why this is even a question. Is the tragedy of the commons not taught in american education? Is Land Clearance(one example of many linked) and Enclosure not taught? (Serious question open to anyone, I do not know what history is taught outside major european countries)

      This is essential basic history to understand how land developed from being a collectively worked upon thing, decentralised, owned by everybody that worked on it, into something that was owned by a tiny tiny number of people so that they could exploit it to the maximum degree.

      Decentralisation is the creation of a commons. The goal of corporations is centralisation of power and monopoly. They are at complete polar opposites in goals. The entire point of the fediverse in the first place is to destroy the centralised power of web corporations who took what was originally a digital commons populated by thousands of sites and communities and through a form of digital enclosure turned it into a space controlled by a handful of companies.

      Learn history other than the popular military shit folks. It is essential in analysing what affects you.

      • cstine@lemmy.uncomfortable.business
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        As a product of American eduation, I can say resolutely that no, that was absolutely not taught.

        Of course, this is partially because American education sucks and partially because we never HAD common land here: everything was privately owned, after it was stolen from the people who already lived here, and then most of it had people who had no say in the matter enslaved to work on it for the people who stole the land.

        Of course, this is ALSO not really taught, because it’d make people feel sad and make the US look kinda bad, so it’s always talked about but you get like, a week of coverage on both subjects, at most.

        • KairuByte@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s all but against the law in Florida (maybe other states as well?) to teach that aspect of history. Wouldn’t want the white kids to feel guilty for being white… because they know about things that happened in the past.

        • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The Tragedy of the Commons was a bullshit piece of justification for the enclosures written by racist colonial-minded eugenicists that resulted in the theft of land from the people and ultimate consolidation of that land as private property in the hands of the landowners. It argued that this was necessary because otherwise the hordes of drooling peasants would destroy it.

      • areyouevenreal@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The whole point of the tradgedy of the commons is that publically owned finite resources don’t work. You’ve completely misunderstood the point. If you’re following that logic then centralization, ownership, and control is the only answer.

        Of course none of that applies, because what is the finite resource here? Both Meta and the fediverse can co-exist without destroying each other for want of servers or network bandwidth. The only real finite resource here is human attention - in which case federating with meta should be a good thing. This is because it increases the amount of content available on both platforms with the less popular platform benefiting the most.

        • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Christ.

          They do not aim to coexist. They aim to enclose.

          This is incredible levels of naivity. Like, literally completely and totally oblivious to how profit seeking works and what behaviours it creates.

          And the tragedy of the commons was a crock of shit made by racist eugenicist colonial-minded fuckbags, that’s the entire point of teaching it, as a way of understanding the kind of utter bullshit that gets spread when landgrabbers(in the modern day the corporations) want to go grabbing. This is why education is important, without it people go reading a wiki article and come to these kinds of nonsensical conclusions.

          • areyouevenreal@lemmy.fmhy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I didn’t read an article about it, I watched a YouTube video about it from a science and maths youtuber originally. You also didn’t elude to this in your first comment at all. I was actually going to reply to you telling you why it’s a bad concept once I learned it’s history.

            I also don’t get why your complaining to me about education. I don’t control what gets taught in the UK (my home country), I just work with what I have.

            I still don’t see how it applies to this situation in any way.

            Edit: also your username has Lenin in it. Are you a fucking tankie?

  • Cras@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unpopular opinion but defederating Meta is a terrible idea. What are people thinking will happen? Allow them to federate and you’ll have mastodon users able to view and interact with posts from Threads without needing to be concerned about ads or tracking, without giving over any more control of privacy than they would to any other fediverse instance, and without needing to possess accounts homed within the Meta infrastructure.

    Defederate them, and anyone who wants to interact with anyone on threads will most likely need to maintain a presence on both and handover more personal data to Meta than they otherwise would.

    Defederating is actively hostile to fediverse users.

      • Marxine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Was about to say just that. I’ll love to reject people that only follows big corpos.

        • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It isn’t the people. It’s just if I already decided not to use Facebook or twitter. Why would I get back into bed with the devil on an experimental product?

    • Cyzaine@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They have also already declared that if you federate with them, your instance has to abide by their code of conduct, so they already throwing their weight around.

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re acting like there’s only two situations: The entire Fediverse defederates with them, or the entire Fediverse federates with them. That’s not the case.

      I, personally, do not want to interact with anyone using Threads, because Meta has a proven history of poor moderation and of manipulating the narrative for political gain on Facebook and I see no reason to think they won’t do the same here. I am not the only one who holds this opinion. Those of us who feel this way can use instances that defederate with them, and have our way.

      If you want to interact with them, you can maintain an account on an instance that does federate with them. You do not need to have a Threads account, nor does anyone else.

    • ToastyMedic@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Strongly disagree here, better to cast them down now while the chance is there. No mercy or quarter provided to Meta considering their track record.

      If anyone is foolish enough to go there, let them, but do not drag us towards them.

    • Reclipse@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some instances will federate and some will block them. It doesn’t have to be all one or the other.

    • Risk@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      People are concerned about Facebook/Meta trying to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish ActivityPub - if I’ve understood correctly.

      • e-ratic@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        People keep saying EEE as if that’s a point in and of itself without really explaining how in this instance

        • blueshades@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          If they become so ubiquitous that all you see are Threads messages, all they have to do is start adding their own extensions to ActivityPub and degrade the experience of everyone who is not using their app.

          • joshch@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            What kinds of extensions should the typical activitypub user be worried about? I don’t care if Meta adds payments or virtual avatars or whatever–if the core functionality of the Threads app is simple microblogging, it should be perfectly interoperable with that side of the fediverse.

            The more likely effect IMO (if Meta holds to their word on enabling federation on their side) is that other large social media companies (e.g. reddit, twitter) will feel pressured to federate and that will make the fediverse better, not worse.

            My account is on kbin.social but I’m working on getting kbin self hosted. When I do, I’ll absolutely be federating with Threads whether or not kbin.social does.

            • Risk@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              A cool post pops up in your feed. You click it. You are met with an overlay that says “Sorry, this post isn’t compatible with your browser. Please log in to Threads.”

              Over half your feed are Threads posts.

              Speculative example.

    • AnonTwo@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The idea is that at first threads.net will seem “normal”, like all the other fediverses

      Then they start adding features that either break against other servers, or straight up aren’t supported, making threads.net seem more enticing just because all the neat features aren’t on the other sites.

      Think how Internet Explorer killed Netscape with all the Page Load errors caused by ActiveX, yet everyone wanted ActiveX sites.

      Once they’ve walked through the path of least resistance and grabbed the bulk of the traffic, they just defederate from everyone.

      • lucidwielder@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yep - best option is to defederate them well before they gain traction & start creating problem by not contributing back to the protocol in a way that benefits everyone.

        I think after the community got burned by Microsoft & then google we’re finally learning.

      • Cordoro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Couldn’t any instance or app do this already? Like #peertube does videos in a way that isn’t necessarily fully federated with #mastodon. We get partial functionality everywhere and some places will have some extra things. If it is popular enough, then add it to the standard and let everyone who wants it add the functionality.

    • 332@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with you.

      Instances can defederate from meta at any point they choose, should it become necessary in the future. Until then, it is a huge boon to the more decentralized parts of the fediverse to get content from where all the “normies” are, as well as giving more visibility to non-meta instances and giving said normies a road to the less data-hungry parts of the network.

        • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          honestly, i think only half-accepting them would be beneficial. it gives meta users a taste of the fediverse but locks them out of a whole bunch of cool stuff that they could have, if they just make an account on one of the instances that they already know because it’s in the half that does federate. we just need to ensure we never repeat xmpp’s mistake: meta users should never be a majority.

          i’ll have to discuss this with our admin team, but my initial plan is to defederate meta if usage by them hits 25%. if a critical mass of the fediverse does that, in the worst case we’ll split off from them before taking damage, and in the best case we’ll actively siphon away their user base. (and if any other tech giant enters the fray, we’ll just have to include them in the 25% quota as well.)

          update: we discussed the topic and went for an immediate defederation

  • eroc1990@lemmy.parastor.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Bear in mind that this blocks you from seeing Threads posts on your profile. Unless you private your profile, this changes nothing as far as what they’re able to see/pull from your account. Their official documentation states that the block only prevents users from seeing or retrieving content from those servers. You’d probably have to be performing some DNS-level filtering on incoming requests or web firewalling from the host level to prevent their incoming requests.

    • Skepticpunk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Can’t you get banned from Threads? What happens when someone posts content on a Fediverse server that isn’t supposed to be allowed on Threads? Porn, for example.

      • eroc1990@lemmy.parastor.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I assume so, yeah. That pins on Meta’s moderation doing its job. I’m talking the other direction, though - Threads/Meta scraping your data from your Mastodon account.

  • f4te@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    i’ll join the voices saying this is bad for the fediverse, and bad for users in general. there are LOTS of normie users who are joining threads who will be shut off from learning about all the cool other servers if everyone blocks them. this will mean users who want to interact with them need to sign up on Threads, which is what we don’t want.

    what we want is that users on Threads see other servers, learn that they’re better, and migrate over.

    don’t block Threads, show them how much better we are.

    • MoiraPrime@lib.lgbt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re missing the bigger picture. If threads is federating with the fediverse, then that means Zuck is downloading and indexing a copy of everyone else’s posts OUTSIDE of threads.

        • MoiraPrime@lib.lgbt
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure but that doesn’t mean your instances should just hand your posts over to Meta??? And other people here are wrong, maybe lemmy does it differently, but on Mastodon when you defederate from an instance, your instance stops communicating with that instance entirely, rejecting all attempts to exchange information from that server. Anything the suspended instance saw before the suspension sticks around, but that’s basically it. If they never get a chance to even see the information, then the server essentially gets nothing.

          • offbyone@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            My point is that the data on here is purposely shared with every other federated instance, there’s no semblance of privacy and your data is shared with hundreds or likely thousands of admins by the time it’s done (more and more as the network grows). There’s no reason to trust that every admin will keep that information private, some people are already talking about putting up services to expose all the hidden information (in the name of “transparency”). It’s simply trivial for Meta or anybody else to get copies of the data because there’s no real protection from it unless you’re making your instance an island (and that’s an island from everybody, not just one specifically known to be Meta).

      • NevermindNoMind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why can’t Meta (or any other shady company/ organization) do that now anyway. Just set up an innocent looking server, populate it with a small number of accounts to make it look legitimate, federate and start sucking in data. Do you really think every single federated server is run by people with hearts of gold and pure intentions? Your shit is already getting harvested, there’s no stopping that. They don’t need Threads if all they want is to index posts.

        Meta sucks, I get it, but I think a lot of the fear Threads is generating is way overblown.

        • Trapping5341@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They can and probably have already and if not they will.

          Someone posted this to make that point clear to everyone and a few people missed the point.

        • MoiraPrime@lib.lgbt
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ve been on the fediverse since 2017. Anyone who’s dealt with running an instance knows how much of a pain in the ass dealing with huge monolithic instances is.

          Recently on Mastodon for example, Mastodon.social has had huge spam waves of bots creating accounts on it then randomly sending replies with spam links to anyone they can find. And of course because Mastodon.Social is a huge instance with not enough moderators, people on outside instances can’t really do anything except whack-a-mole with the constantly new accounts since the “flagship instance” has open registration. At one point the instance I use now had to suspend mastodon.social temporarily to make the spam wave stop, which of course screwed up everyone’s follows.

          The best part of Mastodon is the federated nature of the network, which gets completely screwed up when you have mountains of people on a handful of “too-big-to-suspend” instances rather than have people spread out across hundreds-thousands of smaller spaces.

    • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The entire fucking point of fediverse is that corporations can be disconnected when they try to come knocking. You’re literally arguing against the reason the platform exists to begin with.

      • DMmeYourNudes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        this is not the point of the fedeverse, this is you’re own angry brain trying to force the general public to agree with you without wanting to explain to them the whole situation.

        • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Given that I’ve been here for three years and you’ve been here 20 days I’m going to say I know a little bit more about it.

              • DMmeYourNudes@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                logical fallacies aren’t “debate shit” they’re poorly constructed arguments you resort to when you don’t have a real argument.

                • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  They are debate shit when you throw them out in average conversation. Do you say this shit to your nan or a random person in the street? Fuck no you don’t because you’d get lamped and called an absolute freak for it. Like I said - Be more normal.

                  ActivityPub was built for the express purpose of decentralising the net after the corporations had successfully enclosed and monopolised on what was originally a commons. It is literally called a commons-based protocol. Guess what’s anti-commons? Corporate monopoly seekers.

                  It would be real fucking nice if people that have been here for a handful of days didn’t suddenly try to wing-it as authorities on a topic they’re barely familiar with. I welcome you, I really do, I welcome you to a space in which we are actively harming corporations. I do not welcome this reddit behaviour and I do not welcome this attitude where you think you need to pretend an ill-informed opinion gained in just days is everything. It’s ok to say “I do not know enough about this to have an informed opinion”. It’s tiring.

                  Anyway, gonna block you for 24 hours now so we disengage from this shit and entirely unproductive back and forth. Later maybe.

  • TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    So I’m on Threads (occupational hazard, I have Instagram for work) and it’s a surreal experience. It’s like if everyone you know on Facebook and Twitter joined you on a muted Tumblr overlay. Someone’s already @'d Zuck to ask for a “home feed that’s just your follows.” So… like Mastodon.

    exaggerated_eye_roll.wav

    • Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Use Threads to preach the benefits of Mastadon, Lemmy, and the Fediverse in general. Spread the good word that if you don’t want to be bombarded by ads, manipulated by unscrupulous algorithms, and have your data jealously horded to be sold to who knows then get off Threads and enter the cool kids zone!

            • books@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If personalities were bumper stickers… this would tell me that they were a 13 year old girl who just learned html.

              Or… ‘don’t take me serious!’

              • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Do you write screeds about the woke mob and women with blue hair too?

                It’s not normal, you’re completely right about that. It doesn’t matter. Everything does not have to look like the corporate internet and frankly advocating that everything on the internet wear a suit and tie to be “taken serious” (your words) is something you should re-examine. Spaces with different cultures are good and having a kneejerk reactionary intolerance to them is bad.

                • books@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s bull.

                  If you can’t see the relevance of looking professional than I don’t know what to tell you. It’s important.

  • Nougat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    If Meta is running a fediverse instance, they’re doing it for money. Sure, I might be able to block Meta-sourced content from reaching me, but that doesn’t prevent me-sourced content from reaching Meta - where they can monetize it.

    Show me how to do that, and I’m on it like white on rice.

    • MiscreantMouse@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is exactly my concern, I don’t want my online activity to become another revenue stream for meta. If they can put ads next to our posts then we’re back to working for free for the billionaires.

  • DanseMacabre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Threads being in the Fediverse is a plus for me, not a negative. It means I could follow regular people and friends who would never in a million years join places like Mastodon or Lemmy while I still get the benefits of being on those platforms, all while being shielded from Meta’s ads and data harvesting. The only issue is I don’t actually believe Zuck will go through with it. They’ll either never federate or severely limit it if they do.

    Mastodon themselves have put out a post outlining how this will affect them (it won’t) and how EEE is not a threat. If Meta does eventually opt out of ActivityPub then cool. It’s not like that’s why Mastodon users were there in the first place.

      • areyouevenreal@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The post has been put out by the people that made Mastodon. Why should anyone trust you over them when you provide 0 arguments against them.

        Embrace Extend Extinguish was always a Microsoft strategy and one they have been forced to abandon over the years. Their attitude changed towards open source because it doesn’t work! I think you might be the one who is lacking in knowledge or “education” here.

        • Zoot@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Open source doesnt work? Would love to see a source on that one alone. Almost sounds like you have an agenda to sell.

          • furikuri@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think you misinterpreted what they said. They meant “Their attitude changed towards open source because [Embrace, Extend, Extinguish] doesn’t work”

              • furikuri@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The sentence itself is a little ambiguous but it’s nothing major, it’s easy enough to get the message from context

              • Sunforged@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I had to read it twice because I misinterpreted it the same way.

                Their attitude changed towards open source because it doesn’t work!

                That “it” could be interpreted either as ‘open source’ or ‘EEE’ from the previous sentence.