There has been significant discussion in recent weeks regarding Meta/Threads. We would like to express our disappointment with the negative and threatening tone of some of these discussions. We kindly ask everyone to engage in civil discourse and remember that not everyone will share the same opinions, which is perfectly acceptable.
When considering whether or not to defederate from Threads, we're looking for a decision based on facts that prioritize your safety. We strive to remain neutral to make an informed choice.
First, there seem to be some misconceptions about how the Fediverse operates based on several posts. We’ve compiled some resource links to help explain the details and address any misunderstandings.
Fed Tips , Fediverse , ActivityPub
Initial Thoughts:
It seems unlikely that Meta will federate with Lemmy. When/if Meta adopts ActivityPub, it will likely affect Mastodon only rather than Lemmy, given Meta's focus on being a Twitter alternative at the moment.
Please note that we have a few months before Threads will even federate with Mastodon, so we have some time to make the right decision.
Factors to Consider:
Factors to consider if Meta federates with Lemmy:
Privacy - While it’s true that Meta's privacy settings for the app are excessive, it’s important to note that these settings only apply to users of the official Threads app and do not impact Lemmy users. It’s worth mentioning that Lemmy does not collect any personal data, and Meta has no means of accessing such data from this platform. In addition, when it comes to scraping data from your post/comments, Meta doesn’t need ActivityPub to do that. Anyone can read your profile and public posts as it is today.
Moderation - If a server hosts a substantial amount of harmful content without performing efficient and comprehensive moderation, it will create an excessive workload for our moderators. Currently, Meta is utilizing its existing Instagram moderation tools. Considering there were 95 million posts on the first day, this becomes worrisome, as it could potentially overwhelm us and serve as a sufficient reason for defederation.
Ads - It’s possible if Meta presents them as posts.
Promoting Posts - It’s possible with millions of users upvoting a post for it to trend.
Embrace, extend, and extinguish (EEE) - We don't think they can. If anyone can explain how they technically would, please let us know. Even if Meta forks Lemmy and gets rid of the original software, Lemmy will survive.
Instance Blocking - Unlike Mastodon, Lemmy does not provide a feature for individual users to block an instance (yet). This creates a dilemma where we must either defederate, disappointing those who desire interaction with Threads, or choose not to defederate, which will let down those who prefer no interaction with Threads.
Blocking Outgoing Federation - There is currently no tool available to block outgoing federation from lemmy.world to other instances. We can only block incoming federation. This means that if we choose to defederate with our current capabilities, Threads will still receive copies of lemmy.world posts. However, only users on Threads will be able to interact with them, while we would not be able to see their interactions. This situation is similar to the one with Beehaw at the moment. Consequently, it leads to significant fragmentation of content, which has real and serious implications.
Conclusion:
From the points discussed above, the possible lack of moderation alone justifies considering defederation from Threads. However, it remains to be seen how Meta will handle moderation on such a large scale. Additionally, the inability of individuals to block an instance means we have to do what is best for the community.
If you have any added points or remarks on the above, please send them to @[email protected].
It's great to see you address this and display good understanding of all the facets and why they are or aren't a problem.
In particular, I appreciate that you recognize the issues with moderation and content monopolization that would most likely occur as a result of hundreds of millions of Threads users flooding the ecosystem.
This is a little corner of the internet that people have flocked to for very specific reasons, either to specifically escape corporate control or to seek an environment that is less toxic than the alternative. This is a nascent community that is taking shape, slowly. Connecting it to one of the largest, loudest and most toxic social media actors at this crucial stage of building the identity of Lemmy sounds a lot like playing with fire.
I think why many people feel so strongly about this matter is that we are dealing with a known quantity. From a corporate perspective, we know what Meta stands for and how they do business. We know they monetize outrage and seek to trap their users in parasitic feedback loops to drive engagement. We know they have no moral or legal scruples.
The same can be said about userbase. This isn't an unknown group of people with an unfamiliar culture that - who knows, maybe they're kind and nice? These are people from Facebook and Instagram, probably supplemented by plenty from Twitter too with how that platform is doing. We already know the culture on those platforms, it's been shaped by the outrage centric monetization and (lack of) moderation.
It's possible that not many of them will find their way over here, but in my brief time here I have already seen interactions with Mastodon users, both in comments and as posts on the All feed. Now imagine a platform with a thousand times more users than Mastodon. Yes, perhaps the tiger won't find its way in, but why leave the front door open and just pray it's docile?
Still, I appreciate the transparent communication once again, and it seems these are issues you are aware of, so I trust that you'll make a good decision when the time comes.
@Coelacanth
I think this sentence may be pivotal to understanding the arguments opposing or favouring federation with a Meta (or other large corporate) service.
Some people see the fediverse as consisting primarily of communities with a certain shared set of values. And for those people taking a moral stance against those parties (such as Meta) antithetical to those principles assumes primacy. By implication however (in my opinion), this limits the reach of the fediverse because, let's face it, 95% (random number but probably not too far off) of people in the wider world don't care about this stand. The fediverse's current userbase however has a much higher proportion of people who do care.
Other people see the fediverse as having the potential of being a widespread alternative to mainstream services such as reddit, twitter, youtube etc. They may share some of the same concerns about the dangers of centralised control (or else they wouldn't be here), but believe that the decentralised nature of the fediverse model is resilient enough to both accommodate corporate players while not being dependent on, or endangered by them.