this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
43 points (68.7% liked)
Fediverse
28496 readers
545 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Do you want Facebook to do to us what everyone else did to open standards???
Build a closed alternative, ignore that we even exist, bind all the users and have us fall back to the low levels of relevance we had before Twitter and Reddit went crazy.
At least with open standards we have a slim chance at giving our input on how we want things to be.
It's nice that you think Facebook will care about or be influenced by any input we have. They won't play nice, if you think they will, I have a bridge to sell you.
We only stand a chance if we cut them off from the fediverse completely. If we don't, they will throw their weight around and kill the rest of it.
Reddit and Twitter are massive, and we're becoming more and more relevant, even though they both still exist. One more service we aren't connected to won't exactly make us irrelevant, we have momentum.
Could you please be a bit less aggressive? The post is titled "Why I probably won't defederate from Threads" and I've given my personal arguments. I've also addressed the points you're making, both in my post and in other comments over here.
It isn't titled "Why you shouldn't defederate from Threads" or "Why we shouldn't defederate from Threads". It's not even titled "I will never defederate from Threads". There are many valid and well-written arguments for defederating. I posted my counter-arguments for a bit of balance yet I have no intention to force or even convince anyone to do as I do.
So let's please be civil around here and not go around brigading people who have different opinions with arguments they have already heard multiple times. If you want to set a good example, then do that for a respectful discussion just as much as you try to do it for the ethical aspects of federation.
I read it. Your points, especially about how they'll have to play by the rules, seem a bit naive. Theoretically, those points should have applied to Google and XMPP, but in reality, Google just threw their weight around and killed it anyways. It's very likely that Facebook will do the same.
Sorry if I seem a bit aggressive, I just don't want to see this thing we have die because of the influence of a megacorporation.
I don't see how Google killed XMPP. They removed it from their own application which is the exact same effect as not speaking an open protocol in the first place. Nobody forced other XMPP-based applications to change. You know what made me stop using XMPP and not keep my Jabber instance when I moved to a new server? Clunky applications and the fact that everyone I had in my contact list was also on another more comfortable platform (at first ICQ and MSN, later Discord) and prefered to contact me there.
If we federate with Threads, they may use their power to push changes to ActivityPub but nobody forces any of us to implement them, making them effectively irrelevant. If they do something that's incompatible with the rest of the fediverse, they effectively defederate from everyone else. So either way the end result is two separate sub-fediverses and the more popular one will win out. Hint: it's gonna be the one with billions of dollars of funding. If we let them in as long as they play by the rules, we have a chance to educate people on what's beyond Threads, it gives Meta something to lose if they defederate (their users' ability to talk to people in their friend lists). At least we don't lose anything that we wouldn't also lose by not talking to them in the first place.
When they removed XMPP, they disconnected the Google users from the rest of XMPP. And since it was the largest instance, XMPP as a whole basically died. People couldn't use XMPP to stay in touch anymore with people using Google's thing, and vice-versa, which XMPP as a whole kind of came to rely on. I don't know much more about XMPP, but anyways, most of my points are general and not XMPP-specific.
Also, cutting them off from the fediverse won't have the effect you're trying to say it will have. It'll just be it's own thing, just like Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc are now. And the fediverse thrives in spite of them.
And please, stop assuming Facebook will play by the rules. They won't.
And how is this different from not using XMPP (or being defederated) in the first place? Their platform would still have become huge and pulled over users. People don't use a platform because they like the technology. They use it because it has people they want to talk to. Even google themselves had to accept that with their failed Google Wave which didn't even survive the closed beta because people who got an invite couldn't talk to their friends who didn't get one.
And I'm explicitly not assuming Facebook will play by the rules in the long run. I'm saying while they do, let's talk to them, even if it's just for a month. When they eventually start breaking the rules, we can still defederate and I assure you that we won't lose significantly more users than we would have if we had defederated earlier. Because why would we? We're on the side of the open-closed divide that values privacy and open source software. Our only reason to ever switch to Threads is to talk to people that aren't on Mastodon/Lemmy/Whatever. If that's a requirement for someone they have to do that either way. But for someone who starts out on Threads, we might suddenly create an incentive to create a Mastodon account to keep talking to their friends. They probably won't leave Threads but they will use both, pulling the fediverse into the public conciousnes.
It's different because for a while, there was no incentive for the average person to move to decentralised, libre XMPP when they could interact with the people there from Google Talk. If someone was on XMPP and asked a Talk user to come over, the odds they would be convinced were very small. Why would they when they can access it anyways?
Even if they didn't kill it, they certainly stalled it's growth, from the moment they federated.
Facebook will probably start not playing nice slowly, if they don't right away, so it'll be very hard to draw a line where they should be defederated, so larger instances and users may never end up defederating them thanks to blurred lines and constantly shifting goalposts. "We'll defederate when they don't play nice" is too vague to work when they move slowly and change things gradually.
When the vicious predator bares it's fangs, it's best to deal with it right away by running or fighting back, instead of trying to be friendly with it.
And how many of those Google Talk users would have created an XMPP account if there hadn't been any federation at all? If someone was on XMPP and asked a Talk user to come over, the odds they would be convinced were very small. Why would they when they can ask you to create a Google Talk account instead?
Why would someone create a Signal account when they can ask you to create a WhatsApp account instead?
People do it, because they're convinced of it for one reason or another. But it's a hell of a lot harder to convince someone to move when both are interoperable. Imagine if Signal and WhatsApp were federated together, do you think Signal would have nearly as much success as it does if WhatsApp users could just stay there to communicate with Signal users?
Its interesting how aggressive some people can get if you respectfully state your opinion
Have a look at the upvote to downvote ratio on the top level post. Currently 22 up / 9 down. I can fully respect people not agreeing with me, it is a controversial opinion after all. Fine, ignore it or respectfully post an on-topic reply and move on. But actively marking it as "this is bad" or leaving replies that just repeat arguments that I've explicitly addressed... I don't get it. Especially when my last two paragraphs are literally:
If a person thinks your idea is a bad one, downvoting and walking away is just about the least aggressive they can be, though. Especially if they see other people have already left comments that reflect their opinion so they couldn't add anything.
I guess there are different opinions about what downvotes are for. Personally I think they shouldn't reflect if something matches my opinion but if it's worth reading. For me, a downvote says "this is badly written", "this is rude" or in general "this shouldn't be on people's front page". I will gladly upvote a post/comment that contradicts my personal belief if the author put effort into it.
That's fine. Fwiw I don't even have a button for it on my instance. You shouldn't assume everyone is going to share your usage though, in fact I think most people don't.
Completely share your view and practice. Seems are in a minority. I mean, let's take your comment right here. it's your point of view, there's nothing wrong or insulting about it, it's well articulated, it's thought-provoking. And a bunch of people downvote it. So that less people will see it. Apparently that makes them feel better. It's a pretty pretty sad reflection on humanity, I find.