this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
289 points (97.1% liked)
Lemmy.ca's Main Community
2758 readers
3 users here now
Welcome to lemmy.ca's c/main!
Since everyone on lemmy.ca gets subscribed here, this is the place to chat about the goings on at lemmy.ca, support-type items, suggestions, etc.
Announcements can be found at https://lemmy.ca/c/meta
For support related to this instance, use https://lemmy.ca/c/lemmy_ca_support
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I guess people are worried about Meta pulling some moves out of Embrace, Expand, Extinguish playbook.
But isn't the core design of the fediverse resistant, if not immune, to those sorts of tactics? Should Threads be allowed in the federation, the only thing they can do is defederate, right? That means we may get used to the increased userbase and become disappointed when a large chunk of their traffic goes dark, but the remaining fediverse will have grown and benefited until then.
I think the idea is that Threads can pull in a bunch of users to the federated ecosystem using other instance's content, implement features exclusive to Threads to entice people to move from whatever instance they're on now to Threads, and then defederate Threads from everything else afterwards and remove ActivityPub compatibility to trap people on Threads and then enshittify the platform for more money.
But... if we defederate now, won't we just be trying to create a walled garden of a tiny userbase?
If the goal is to grow the non-corporate Fediverse and encourage privacy and self-hosting, I would imagine that the best way to do that is to connect with the corporate Fediverse and proselytize the benefits of moving off of Threads. In the end, the non-corporate federation will grow immensely, I imagine. Whereas if we cut ourselves off now, I fear we will actually drive people to Threads, and make it nearly impossible to convince people to get off of Threads.
The problem is that corporations can scale their own propaganda campaigns way better than we can. It's best to cut the problem off at the source than it is to try and compete with them at their own game.
Hmm, perhaps. Although if we never federate in the first place, I guess we'll never know. It seems like if we tested the waters, what we could gain could far outweigh what we could lose, and we could always cut the line if we see it clearly isn't working out.
It feels counter productive, but the reality is that the less huge corporations are involved in a federation, the safer it is.
The problem with federation with Meta is that it encourages Meta to develop and contribute to the infrastructure. Which sounds great, but the record is poor on that front.
Once a company with huge money starts working on your infrastructure, they're going to make changes, changes that maybe the community doesn't agree with, but since all the money is being funneled through one of two companies, they make the decision.
Then the company decides that they don't want to keep supporting something that doesn't make them any money. Since Meta would theoretically bring millions of users from their platforms, they could decide to suddenly cut out all non-Meta instances. Now we're the odd ones out, your friends are wondering why they can't reach you anymore, you're suddenly offline.
Embrace, extend, extinguish. It happened with XAMPP, it happened with Java, CSS, most browsers are Chrome based, 'exchange' email servers, etc.
The best thing to maintain software freedom is to never open the door to huge companies.