https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html

Many of us do not trust Facebook and anything it is associated with or swallows up.

EDIT:

https://techcrunch.com/2023/07/05/adam-mosseri-says-metas-threads-app-wont-have-activitypub-support-at-launch/

"Instagram head Adam Mosseri said "

““Soon, you’ll be able to follow and interact with people on other fediverse platforms, such as Mastodon. They can also find people on Threads using full usernames, such as @[email protected].””

“We’re committed to building support for ActivityPub, the protocol behind Mastodon, into this app. We weren’t able to finish it for launch given a number of complications that come along with a decentralized network, but it’s coming,” he said.

“If you’re wondering why this matters, here’s a reason: you may one day end up leaving Threads, or, hopefully not, end up de-platformed. If that ever happens, you should be able to take your audience with you to another server. Being open can enable that.”

  • Haha@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    1 year ago

    To me it’s simple. If Zuck has a part in this, I will find somewhere else to go.

      • Onii-Chan@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Same. If Meta isn’t chased away, I’m leaving the Fediverse. Once I ripped the reddit bandaid off, my loyalty to any one site evaporated. I won’t feel a thing if I need to find somewhere else to go.

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          If this instance doesn’t defederate from Threads, I’m sure plenty of others will. And you can always host your own and lose very little functionality. That’s the entire point of the fediverse. Tying your view of the fediverse to one single instance is kind of missing the point.

          • Onii-Chan@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            My concern is the embrace, extend, extinguish method that will ruin the Fediverse regardless of the number of instances, as big tech giants are so adept at doing. I don’t have an optimistic outlook here. Meta is here for a reason, and they aren’t going to just go away now that their foot is in the door.

            • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t see how they can accomplish that though. They can’t really bring any value other than lower barrier of entry to users. They’re exposed to other instances and everyone can point out what they’re giving up when they can literally lose nothing by switching to a different instance.

              • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Everyone read one article on ebrace, extend and extinguish and now they’re experts on the subject matter

                For all I see is that the biggest threat Threads brings to us is that by federating with them you’re going to receive a shit ton of facebook quality content

        • MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yup, all that matters is doomscrolling and shitposts, and we can all get our fill of content without any corporate fuckers fucking this shit the fuck up.

          Also, Fuck spez and fuck Reddit.

    • s08nlql9@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      hold your horses guys. But seriously, lets not put too much pressure on the Admins, they’re doing a fine job maintaining the servers. I guess we wait how Meta will federate and let the admins take time to decide.

  • k0mprssd@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    federation with meta will bring nothing but evil into our niche little corner of the net and i am not for it.

  • Gazumbo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Please don’t federate with Meta. You can guarantee they’ll ruin all that is good about the fediverse.

  • AcidOctopus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If we don’t defederate from the outset I’m just gonna join another instance that did. I didn’t sign up for Lemmy because I wanted fucking twitter.

  • Strolleypoley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s very simple. Facebook/meta bullshit on here and I am moving to -tildes.

    Fuck corporations. I hope they all burn and I hope their creators and their born and unborn offspring get cancer and die.

  • Arotrios@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s starting to look like the capacity for a user to independently defederate their content from specific platforms is in order. Even better would be the capacity to select what specific content is federated where when publishing.

    I personally want nothing to do with Meta, but I’d prefer to have the choice rather than having it made for me by the admins.

    • Skaryon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Agreed. I am already blocking communities I don’t care for all the time but sometimes it would be much easier to be able to just block their entire instance (because the whole instance circles around the same type of content). I won’t be able to find one single instance the federated with just the right others for my taste so let me just filter myself.

      • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Blocking and defederation are not the same, just to note. If you block someone, I’m pretty sure they can still see your stuff. You just can’t see them. Defederation would actually stop them from seeing your stuff.

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

          Defederating doesn’t stop Facebook from seeing your posts. It stops you from seeing theirs. Everyone seems to have this the wrong way around

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

          I don’t think that’s true, because we a world user I can still see things posted on Beehaw. They just can’t see anything I reply with. So, if our instance defederates from threads, we won’t be able to see their posts but they will see ours.

      • vaguerant@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can’t have an instance that runs on your personal set of preference unless you run your own. Somebody else went to the effort of buying a domain, hosting, handling moderation on their own time, and everything else that comes with running a fediverse instance, so if you sign up to that instance, you get to deal with their rules.

        Even if you found an instance which suits your desires–which ultimately amounts to being essentially unmoderated, since you don’t trust an admin to be in charge of moderation–you’d find it getting defederated by other instances because bad stuff happens in unmoderated spaces. What you’re asking for, an instance which can access everything at all times, is fundamentally incompatible with the nature of the fediverse. I’m not being glib, but if that’s what you’re here for, you’re in the wrong place.

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

            It sounds like you are, because if you want a place where you alone are in charge of what content gets blocked, what you really mean is a place where nothing gets blocked by the admins, so that it’s all up to you. If you want to be in charge of everything you see, all of that content must be allowed to reach the instance, i.e. it must be unmoderated and federated with everything.

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

              I don’t get how you arrive at that conclusion. All I want is for me myself to not see certainty content I don’t care for. Here’s an example: there’s an nsfw instance that is federated with my instance. I don’t mind that at all. Great content for many people I am sure. But it seems to mostly be communities for straight men (or does into female bodies). I’m a gay man. I really don’t care for tits of any size. So I keep blocking these communities when their posts show up. Would be much easier if I could just block/hide the whole instance from my own feed.

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

                OK, I follow you now, sorry for misunderstanding. When you said “I won’t be able to find one single instance the federated with just the right others for my taste so let me just filter myself,” I took that to mean you wanted to start from scratch, rather than starting from a baseline moderation level you agree with plus your own filtering on top of that. That, I can certainly agree with (especially as a kbin user, where I have that capacity). I imagine it will come to Lemmy as well at some future date.

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

                  Yeah all I meant was there won’t be a single instance that tailors exactly to my taste in content, which is fine.

    • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is virtually impossible. The amount of processing power to do that would grind any server with more than a handful of people to a halt.

      Best case scenario is hoping Lemmy servers has the same capabilities as other ActivityPub servers. You can make it so Threads can see the server but the server can’t see Threads. In those scenarios, even if they reply to your post, you won’t see it.

      In any case, if you want to choose who you federate at a user level, create your own server. You can easily federate with who you want at that point. By being on another server, you give the admins some control. That’s an agreement you made when you joined a server controlled by someone else. There is very little stopping you from your own server. It can cost very little up front and after that, effectively just your own efforts to keep it running. You can be the sole user and make it fairly easily.

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

        It’s not a larger server load, because you’re actually publishing less as users defederate their content. The SQL is actually pretty simple if you have a content field for blacklisting that the user selects when publishing. On the federating front end, you simply don’t publish the content to the instance the user defederated from, as marked in the content field. It’s basically one more line in SQL - essentially would be something like:

        where content.blacklist != domain

        in the select statement.

        This is actually already in play to some extent over here at kbin, where @Ernest has made one helluva incredible engine - we’ve got domain level filtering for our feeds, and the search capacity is getting pretty cool. Having that same capacity for what we publish would make for an amazing platform.

            • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s not really how the protocol works though. You’re suggesting a major change to ActivityPub itself.

              Edit: and it’s a change that isn’t even necessary. It’s the whole reason you can create your own instance.

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

                It’s not a big change - it’s adding a field, a table, and a filtering line to the outgoing SQL select statement that chooses what a domain accesses when it requests the feed. Access level control has been a thing for content management systems for 20 years - this is not a big ask.

                But to be honest, as you’re the third person to have this misconception, I’m getting to the point where I’m almost tempted to crack open the kbin code and see if I can do it myself.

                • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Again, you’re talking about changing the ActivityPub protocol. Objects aren’t published the way you think they are. It’s more like batch processing. This simply can’t be done at scale without massive investment.

                  Edit: ActivityPub is closer to an RSS Feed than it is to sending out what you publish to each server. It makes it’s lsit available to others (who don’t have this filter you’re talking about) and they grab the whole thing. They don’t scan each item and grab it as they go. And again, that scanning is done by them, not the hosting server. The feed is open by default. There is no real authentication and identity at the level you’d require to transform this into an entirely different product (a CMS).

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

      Your choice is in which instance you sign up to, meaning you find somewhere you agree with the admins’ choices. If your views are so unique that no such place exists, you start your own instance.

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

        Well, yeah, that’s how it works now.

        I’m looking at an improvement to the current system. Admin views can change, and in this scenario they’re a form of centralized power and responsibility. Delegating this particular power and responsibility to the user would remove the additional burden of moderation and allow the admins to focus on running the instance rather than policing the Fediverse.

        Giving users the choice of where their content is federated seems like a happy medium for all parties concerned. The admins don’t have to get political and the users can stay away from the Zuckening if they want to.

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          This would be a mess to support on a server and I don’t blame anyone not wanting to pay to host that much wasted processing power. You can start a server for under $50. Admins have the power to do what they want on the servers they own. Federation works on a per-server basis. You can block who you don’t want to see. Some even allow you to block entire instances. But federation at the user level is ridiculous on its face and would require ridiculous server power.

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

            As someone who works with large data on a daily basis, no, it’s not.

            Gonna point you to my post here.

  • Ulu-Mulu-no-die@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yes please block them, I don’t want Meta poisoning Lemmy. If I wanted to see facebook content I would have a facebook account, I don’t.

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

    I don’t want them commercializing the space. I feel as though we came here to get away from that. I fear an EEE tactic at worst, ads possibly showing in my feed at the least. But its not like we can’t defederate after launch if it is terrible.

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

      There’s no way to inject ads into your feed, except possibly by the admin of your own instance. Meta, or any other actor, could hypothetically use a bunch of bots to promote regular posts that are secretly ads throughout the Fediverse, but that would lead to them getting defederated very quickly by everyone else.

    • Machinist3359@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Threads has 60 million users in 1 day, the fediverse has 12 million over years of growth.

      We’d be keeping ourselves out of Threads, not the other way around.

        • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That 60 million includes the vast majority of people’s actual real-life friends and family.

          I know “les normies suck lulz” is a popular sentiment here, but I don’t think constantly harping on how much we hate the average person and find them to be trash is a particularly good way to create a positive and welcoming community.

          • Maxcoffee@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t hate anybody but I do hate their random bad takes and opinions on things and I don’t care about their families either.

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

            This issue is less about accepting them, and more about preventing Meta and their scummy practices. I don’t want their hateful algorithms involved here. I don’t want their growth-at-all-costs mindset that will damage things more than any of their content will help. Whether the content has any value is a matter of opinion but my issue with this is that there are platforms for that kind of content already. If you want and enjoy it, go there. The fediverse so far doesn’t have the corporate evils permeating it, and very few communities online get to say that. No good can come from allowing meta in the door, and inevitably it will kill the fediverse in some form or fashion. People like to say “oh we can defederate later”. Later? When it is harder because now you have people hooked to the “content” coming from there? No, it’s best to never open the door in the first place.

            • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Their algorithm can’t apply here. It isn’t how ActivityPub or algorithms work. Their algorithm is per user. So that right there can’t migrate over. So a global algorithm which is way less useful is the only way. The only way to do that and have other instances ‘see’ it is to mess with the statistics. So they’d need to break spec. So if they do that (and destroy the ability to get user responses like upvotes and boosts for their native algorithm, ie make it less valuable to them) they’ll get defederated anyway. The argument here is just let’s see how it plays out. Literally nothing is lost by seeing what happens. If it’s a bunch of garbage, most instances will defederate anyway and no problem. There is no downside to wait and see.

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

                I appreciate the perspective, but I still disagree on whether there is a downside. Waiting and seeing what happens with a group that is known to have malicious intent isn’t going to ever be a true net gain. So why wait and see? We all see enough from their platforms. Why invite that here at all? And once they are in the door I argue it’s harder to expunge them because now you have their end users in the mix crying out that they don’t want Threads defederated.

                • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Threads does have the chance to bring the fediverse into more mainstream acceptance. It may introduce users who wouldn’t otherwise know there are alternatives. The net gain may not be one for you specifically, but the concept as a whole. It may not do that, but it can. And the argument against waiting and seeing being Thread users making noise? That seems farfetched. They don’t hold leverage at all.

    • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That not really how the fediverse works. A server can defederate them, but there’s no way to keep them out of the fediverse as a whole. It’s somewhat antithetical to the core purpose behind the fediverse anyway. They can’t commercialize your instance.

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

        I think most people believe that defederating means your messages stop going to Facebook when infact it’s the other way around. Only way to prevent Facebook from seeing what you’re posting here is if they defederate with us which probably is easy to accomplish by having content on your instance that’s agains Facebook’s terms of service and that you refuse to take it down even if they threaten to defederate.

        What defederating (if we do it) does achieve however is that it removes all Threads content from our communities which probably isn’t a bad thing either