this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
817 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

55988 readers
3186 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] einlander 147 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (11 children)

It's all fun and games until Facebook starts adding features, then eventually starts defining what the fediverse should do to maintain federation with Facebook.

[–] [email protected] 72 points 1 year ago

Embrance, Extend, Extinguish. Enshittification. Call it what you will, but i don't think this will end well for us.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is my biggest fear. The hidden weakness of the fediverse is that the largest implementation gets to set the rules of federation

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 127 points 1 year ago (5 children)

XMPP did not exist on its own outside of nerd circles, while ActivityPub enjoys the support and brand recognition of Mastodon.

Jabber was widely used in the early 2000s and not just among "nerds." But Rochko would have only been 7+ years old at the time so how would he know that.

The "brand recognition of Mastodon" part makes me think this has to be a joke... right?

[–] [email protected] 78 points 1 year ago (9 children)

yeah, honestly, i think the optimism is somewhat misplaced. we must ensure that proprietary solutions, like threads, are not the main way people interact with the fediverse. it's better to defederate early and continue in smaller communities while we still can, than to let them seep into every community we have, only for them to pull the plug later and lock everyone into threads.

i think it's alright to federate with them a little bit, but we cannot allow threads to become the most popular fediverse app

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] glockenspiel 72 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Man who signed NDA with Meta is suddenly gushing about Threads. I know, I know, this isn’t just anybody.

He addressed a few issues very topically but side stepped a major one. What happens if Threads takes off and Meta decides to enforce a trusted partner network by defederating all but a handful of instances unless they conform to Meta’s demands?

After all, if we allow Threads to grow to a successful size, that is where almost everybody will be. It is why Lemmy was a tiny project for a long time until Reddit and Twitter fucked up too badly and for too long. Twitter sucked all the air out of the room for Mastodon. Arguably still does despite itself. And Reddit did the same with Lemmy by simply existing.

Now imagine if Reddit made a Lemmy instance, kept policies around to make it grow large, then cracked down with an iron fist once they had the dominant position?

Eugen considers what would happen if Meta abandoned ActivityPub. But I don’t think would need to happen. They just need to wall off. They can keep the standard.

Another example: Google and RCS. The RCS Android users have isn’t the open standard. Google built a layer of proprietary middleware around it. They fiercely guard API access, which is why only a few “trusted partners” get to use it. And now Google is RCS. There are no more competitors even though it is open.

Because Google sucked all the air out of the room and became the dominant player able to dictate to the rest.

And so, too, will happen with ActivityPub and this whole shebang unless we stop them from being interoperable first. I get Eugen wants this tech to grow and prosper. But you don’t do it by making deals with the devil.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 103 points 1 year ago (5 children)

XMPP did not exist on its own outside of nerd circles, while ActivityPub enjoys the support and brand recognition of Mastodon.

I love Mastodon and the Fediverse, but to pretend that we are not a nerd circle is a bit disingenuous.

[–] Anders429 41 points 1 year ago

Yeah, it's a bit naive to think this can't go the exact same way XMPP did.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, if he thinks Mastodon is mainstream, he should check again.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 92 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

This reads as incredibly condescending, naive and duplicitous, filled with hubris.

For starters, the whole “yeah sure XMPP got EEE’d but who cares, only nerds cared about that, lol” is not only false (e.g. Jabber), but also does nothing to quell concerns.

Here’s an account by someone who was in the XMPP trenches when Google started adopting it.

Notice something? The “omg so cool!”, this is exactly the same as Rochko.

It’s the hubris when you’re a FOSS maintainer who toiled away for years without recognition and now a $700B+ corporation is flattering him by wanting to use/interact with his work.

The blog is a far cry from the anti-corporate tone in the informational video from 2018.

Then there’s the fact that Rochko is extremely tight lipped about the off the record meeting with Meta and consistently refuses to deny having received funds from Meta and refuses to pledge not to accept any funds from Meta.

There’s also the unsatisfactory answer he gave to people who started questioning some dubious sponsors and the fact that he rushed to lock the thread, killing any further discussion.

I genuinely think the dude is just so hyped for the perceived recognition, that he lost the thread.

So much so that he thinks Mastodon is untouchable.

And it’s extremely naive to think that Meta has benevolent motives here or that Mastodon will survive any schemes Meta might have.
What’s more realistic is that Mastodon will die because people will flock to Threads if their social graph has moved over.

Similarly these lofty and naive ideas that people on Threads will make the switch to Mastodon once they get a taste of what it has to offer.

So now all of a sudden the “difficulty” to get started in Mastodon, that is keeping people who want a polished corporate experience away isn’t going to be an issue?

Especially when in the “extinguish” phase Meta will have siloed off from Mastodon and its portability function, having to leave their social graph behind?

It’s all so increasingly naive, one can’t help but wonder if it’s intentional sabotage at this point.

Mark my words, this’ll be the end of Mastodon especially when Meta can outspend Mastodon all day every day to add proprietary functionality.

Sure perhaps years from now a few hundred to a few thousand people might still use it, but it will be as irrelevant as XMPP is to most people, and Rochko with it.

@[email protected] in 2 years.

[–] cybersandwich 37 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I read your comment before I read the blog post and I have to say, I am finding it hard to align it with what's in the blog.

Aside from the hand-waving comment about XMPP, he does a great job of explaining how everything works, and based on my understanding of the fediverse and its architecture, its all true.

I dont understand what people think should happen here. If a large corporation wants to join, then there is nothing anyone can do to stop them. Its an open protocol. If you want to use Threads, join. If you dont, don't. If you want your server to defederate, tell your admin or join a defederated instance. If you want to federate, tell your admin or join an instance that's federated. If you want to control your own destiny completely, self-host.

There is tons of choice here and the way it's architected, several layers of protection. I dont get this moral panic everyone has. This is quite literally the point of a decentralized social network.

At the end of the day, if a large corporation joining the network, kills it, then it was destined to be destroyed from the beginning.

[–] YellowBendyBoy 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

The problems I personally have with Meta are:

  1. Data scraping Meta is an ad company and tries to collect as much data from anyone. They are known to make shadow graphs of people not even in their network to try and know as much about as many people possible. This is their business model so they will do it to the fedi.
  2. Moneyed interests They are going to compensate instances that federate with them, which turns people that run instances from volunteers into business owners. From there they can try and dilute admins further into showing ads etc.
  3. Sucking users from the fediverse They will make it easy to get in (import with history when mastodon does not support it), hard to get out (if you go, you can't take your posts) and will hold your connections hostage against you (we will stop fedarating with the other instances now, so if you want to connect to your friends you have to have a threads account, sorry not sorry).

That and basically all the shit big corps do like make people angry and hacking people's brains to stay on the site for as long as fucking possible. Which they are 100% going to try to do here regardless of our intentions.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] EldritchSpellingBee 26 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Excellent post, and it is truly heartbreaking stuff. We know Eugen signed an NDA with Meta which just seals the deal for me given the other refusals to answer basic questions. I think he is probably a person who is finding validation for something he's worked on for a very long time, and Meta is blinding him. But that's what they do. They are emotional manipulators by trade.

Mark my words, this’ll be the end of Mastodon especially when Meta can outspend Mastodon all day every day to add proprietary functionality

This is exactly what happened with RCS. Sure, it is an open standard. But Google EEE'd it by adding proprietary functionality using their near unlimited budget and influence, then built it all around their own proprietary middleware, like Jive, to lock out others. Some of the most popular messaging apps, including Signal, had been begging Google for RCS access for years. Google refuses, because they firmly control it now. Only a handful of partners get to access the supposedly "open" standard which Google has co-opted. Sure, you could pour resources into the old, unmaintained RCS standard from over a decade ago. Before Google essentially killed it by moving proprietary and snuffing it out. But then it wouldn't work with Google's RCS, and Google's RCS is what people know as RCS at this point.

Meta will do the same thing with ActivityPub specifically, and decentralized social media in general. They will EEE their way to the finish line. They will wall it all off and prevent account portability and cross-communication outside of a preferred partner network. I could see them walling it off to the Meta-owned properties as they seek ways to further tie Facebook, Instagram, and Whatsapp together under a common protocol which they've EEE'd.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 59 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

Can someone explain to me why people are so violently opposed to this?

If Threads blows up, and ActivityPub is integrated, you'll have access to all of it through any federated instance. No need to let Meta sap all your data to view it or communicate with it's users. Meta can't kill ActivityPub or force us onto Threads, just abandon it and leave us back where we are today. If you don't like the Meta users, just make or join an instance that isn't federated.

Anyone can scrape the metaverse data and use it for whatever, Meta included. Them implementing ActivityPub doesn't change anything about that.

Look I don't like Meta as much as the next guy, but this all just seems like illogical gatekeeping

Edit: I understand now, see: XMPP and Google. Good article someone replied to me with, down below.

[–] [email protected] 109 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

Step 1: Threads starts federating with mastodon

Step 2: mastodon users happily engage with threads, letting it become the biggest fediverse instance

Step 3: threads stops federating with mastodon

Step 4: mastodon users switch over to threads where all conversation is happening, leaving the fediverse deserted

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 year ago (1 children)

More than 5 million people signed up within hours, let's assume they will have 30 million users by the end of the month. I'm sure there are Mastodon users will consider switching to Threads.

https://www.marketing-interactive.com/meta-threads-garners-5-million-signups-in-first-few-hours

And not to mention the Threads app is a privacy nightmare. I'm sure they can figure out any fediverse user, If fediverse server remains federated with meta server.

One more thing, this mastodon server admin declined an invitation from meta

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 101 points 1 year ago (5 children)

This article sums it up very well: https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html

A monopolistic corporation joining a free (not gratis, free as in free software) network is always a hostile takeover.

[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That was a good read, totally changed my position. Thank you.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 59 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Burn me once, shame on you. Burn me twice, shame on me. Big corporations want mainly one thing: gobble up as much value exclusively to themselves. They will take whatever means necessary to get there. The strategies to privatize public resources (XMPP, ActivityPub, etc.) are known. They look great for the public on the outside, but over the years will erode the value for everybody BUT them. In order to not let it get as far, many (including me) are of the conviction to not even give them a finger, let alone the whole hand.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] demonsword 52 points 1 year ago (5 children)

don't know about you folks but this sounded so arrogant to me:

There was a time when users of Facebook and users of Google Talk were able to chat with each other and with people from self-hosted XMPP servers, before each platform was locked down into the silos we know today. What would stop that from repeating? Well, even if Threads abandoned ActivityPub down the line, where we would end up is exactly where we are now. XMPP did not exist on its own outside of nerd circles, while ActivityPub enjoys the support and brand recognition of Mastodon.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 year ago

Same. This was an incredibly weak defense of why this is "totally not the same" as XMPP

[–] JigglySackles 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

This is a great read for anyone curious about what happens when a greedy platform that grows at all costs "helps" an open platform.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 50 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What we know

Threads is a separate app from Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram. This means Threads’ user base will be separate from their existing platforms.

Well that aged like milk…

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] AbsolutePain 47 points 1 year ago (2 children)

FOSS is the ultimate form of software. It's like life, it will just get copied and forked and modified, and it will continue to evolve because it's been set free in the world.

Yeah, Facebook might embrace-extend-extinguish the Fediverse. But on the other hand, it's not the end of the world if they do. Right now, we have a decentralized platform to post, talk and interact on. If that changes, we will create another one

To me, the most interesting part about this is that the Fediverse is even on ~~Facebook's~~ Meta's radar. It's tiny. Do they see it as a possible competitor?

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago (3 children)

They see it as free data. Meta will always suck data wherever they can. Remember they have a LLM engine too and lots of money and lots of data to train it on – but more's even better. They can have swarms of bots trained to spread whatever the highest bidder wants them to spread. They can PR whitewash a brand or a celebrity, they can twist events, they can influence elections.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Hazzardis 44 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Defederate. Meta would do nothing but rot the fediverse from the inside

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] quantum_mechanic 41 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Meta needs to be split up at this point, as do many other tech companies.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JigglySackles 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is why we can't have nice things. It was nice to be on platforms with no corporate stink for a brief moment.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mainaccount 35 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah, right.

tHeRe's No fUCkInG waY FaCEBooK wOULd EVER SUcKed Up aLL liFE FRom soMETHinG GOoD aNd tHEN LefT iT tO DiE WheN it'S nO LONgeR uSEfuL U guiZ!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago (14 children)

Remember what Google Groups did to Usenet? We should be wary.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That is so naive thinking I’m my opinion. They probably gonna use that in the long run to connect only their apps (like you can comment on Facebook from IG). Why would they want people outside of their ecosystems to connect with them? I deleted all their apps and I’m gonna do it with every Fediverse app that federate with them. I know that data in Fediverse is public but I wanted to join community-driven ecosystem outside of Meta.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Marxine 29 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Rochko has demonstrated to be either foolish or naive, and both are bad.

I'm not betting on him to having been bought, out of a minimum of trust, but it wouldn't surprise me if that's the case.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Prior_Industry 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I can see the argument that Meta wants to kill the fediverse but I am kinda excited that we could possibly still get content from feeds that would not consider a mastodon account, even if that is a disagreeable attitude. Looking at Threads it already looks like brands "autosport, financial times" etc have setup regular posting schedules on threads so it really could be the Twitter killer.

[–] Prethoryn 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Can someone ELI5 what this means for Lemmy, Mastadon, and other platforms that are federated?

I thought the point of federations was to allow server instances the ability to prevent other instances from interacting with one another?

Couldnt servers just block or prevent Threads from interacting with them?

Just reading this? I don't understand how this truly changes anything at all. Why is everyone concerned? The API isn't owned by Zuck but open for usage.

[–] Jeffool 56 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

The fear is a practice called "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" (or EEE). It's been used by tech companies before: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish

It, in theory, could work like this:

  1. Meta embraces ActivityPub in its tech in an attempt to garner good will and make it easy for users to transition to Threads.

  2. Meta extends on ActivityPub by saying "oh we're just adding a few things that make this better for our users (on our service) but we're still supporting ActivityPub!

  3. Meta then extinguishes ActivityPub support, and severally hobbles AP, after they secure enough users to be happy and think AP offers no real competition anymore.

Then the enshittification process begins, by moving the focus from users to other interests (usually advertisers) at the expense of users. And eventually to the platform owners, at the expense of advertisers. Though I guess they'll skip the middle step, being a public company?

https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-platforms-cory-doctorow/

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

Interesting times, we have Elon destroying the user base in twitter, sending users to the fediverse (add in reddit), whilst his mate Mark launches Threads and starts courting the fediverse. They're two billionaires. They both have the same vision. Monopolised control. One destroys whilst the other builds. They're in this together. Don't be so blind. De-federate!

[–] Dark_Blade 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

We kept losing, and will keep losing, because billionaire megacorps simply have the money to move worlds if doing so aligns with their ‘interests’ (ie money). This hasn’t changed, and won’t change now either; the Fediverse is done for.

Fuck Facebook for ruining another good thing.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›