this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
132 points (67.6% liked)

Fediverse

17788 readers
13 users here now

A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.

Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".

Getting started on Fediverse;

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I really want to nip threads in the bud. Besides blocking threads.net itself, defederate from any instances that do not. This is blatantly an EEE strategy and a united front is the only way to save what have been accomplished. Here is how Indivudals can do it on mastodont as an example to follow. https://hachyderm.io/@crowgirl/110663465238573628 Edit found this , https://fedipact.online/ please sign.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] simple 127 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I'm for blocking Threads. I'm not for blocking instances that support Threads. That's ridiculous, you'd just split the community and make the Fediverse irrelevant.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 86 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Funny thing - the last time I saw a promising forum destroyed, the beginning of the end was when people got all in a panic about some purported external threat and started demanding a "united front" to combat it. Then they started calling for retribution against anyone who didn't join them. Then they just kept fanning the flames of hostility against anyone on the forum that they decided wasn't sufficiently devoted to their cause, and the forum ended up tearing itself apart from within.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

This is getting ridiculous. Every thread about this is just people parroting "embrace, extend, extinguish" and "enshittification" ad nauseam. No one is actually saying how they could accomplish that. Even if they're technically federated (which I doubt will happen, Meta will probably just want to federate with a couple of the biggest Mastodon servers) we will barely interact with them at all, think of how rarely Mastodon posts show up here. This is a grounded article on what's going on: https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2023/07/what-to-know-about-threads/

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

Yeah - I read that article yesterday.

While I agree that the panic is tiresome, I wouldn't call that a "grounded" article. It struck me as entirely predictable PR fluff from the "CEO" of Mastodon, which is to say, the specific person who stands to profit the most from any sort of deal with Meta.

The strength of the fediverse is its freedom, and specifically each individual's freedom to create an instance or join any instance they prefer. So my plan is to simply exercise my freedom as I see fit, and without submitting to the rhetoric either of people who are trying to convince me to panic or trying to convince me to welcome Meta with open arms.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Wasn't he paid by meta and put under an NDA? Would not trust any meta related info from him right now

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Allowing meta to be federated with anything is like inviting the world's best arsonist your house warming party.

Also, allowing meta or any other of the BP is like pissing your pants, feel nice warm in the beginning..

EEE is a known and well deployed tactic. And a lot larger threat than your perceived division of the user base.

Join threads if you wish but don't bring the fediverse down with you.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have no intention of joining Threads, or of being a part of any instance that's federated with them.

And that's entirely beside the point. I'm not arguing the merits (or lack thereof) of Threads or of federation with them.

I'm simply relaying the fact that I've already seen a forum destroyed by the sort of internal strife you're fomenting.

And it should be noted that with your response, you're still following the script exactly, by jumping to the conclusion that because I criticized your call for a "united front," I must be on the side of the enemy.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Well here we are , we have 2 different points diverging. Everyone that wants to keep BD away as much as possible and your point that allowing them to fester and not only effecting your data but all of ours.

I believe the majority will decide that they are tired of BD and want an alternative that is free from corporate overlords.

Perhaps your fake unity not to splinter that is the problem and not my call for united Front?

It's quite obvious that we who do not want it will not participate in helping meta.

What option do you leave us with?

Not walling them off will be the problem in the long run.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JackBruhhh 46 points 1 year ago

I support blocking Facebook but not other instances.

[–] bappity 40 points 1 year ago

I'm all for blocking threads on instances, BUT

defederating with OTHER instances just because they haven't blocked threads is gonna create a massive split in this community, possibly could kill it. big no 👎

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I must genuinely ask? What does this accomplish, a lot of instances being split apart because one federates with meta and the other doesnt, its not like the meta posts are gonna make it to your instance if you defederate meta, so you are really just splitting the community over nothing. Privacy wise, activity pub is public, by design, so they can just already pull all the information it exposes, and likely do. And finally? How does this stop EEE?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How does this stop EEE?

I suppose if we burn our own community to the ground the moment we're Embraced, there won't be anything left for Meta to Extend or Extinguish.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If the Fediverse can't survive Threads is can't survive period, and we should all just move on now.

[–] handhookcardoor 13 points 1 year ago

This has to be a joke, you can’t be this serious over nothing.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

Defederating from Threads makes sense. Defederating transitively from anything federated with Threads ends in one of two ways: your instance shrivels up and dies, or you successfully kill Threads. Not particularly good odds. You can't compete with Meta, you can only try to maintain your independence and value as an independent platform.

[–] SlippiHUD 10 points 1 year ago

I'm all for blocking Threads as an instance or user, but blocking instances that choose to federate with threads is going to leave a lot users who when Threads breaks its compatibility with Activity Pub with no social graph to keep them tethered to ActivityPub.

Threads can't get the data we're worried about it collecting from federation, they can only get it from you installing/using their site or their app. So don't do that.

I think the difference between this EEE and say XMPPs EEE is Meta/facebook is widely seen as a cancerous entity that people who are already here aren't going to want to use, and when they break compatibility few people are going to want to switch to their service as long as there's still enough people here to talk to.

Not to downplay the threat of EEE, we need to remain vigilant. Our best defenses are preemptive defederation or shitposting how we never see ads.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I hate defederation for things like this. This should be a user's choice, not imposed by the instance itself. I hate how the fediverse forces the moderation choices on you.

I dont care that instagram uses activityPub. As long as I can use activityPub myself, thats enough for me. Most people will always stick with big social media, and I would rather be able to interact with them vs. not

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why shouldn't the instance owner make that choice? It's their hardware, time, money, and desire that made that instance. As soon as I start one, first thing I'm doing is making sure it never gets federated with fashy instances or meta.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah this is a weird spot with who really wants to control things. I would argue anyone with a strong opinion one way or the other should probably self host. Those that can't will need to find an instance where their views line up with the instance admin.

Ultimately I think you're right though, instance admin has final say since uh, they're the admin. Anyone who wants to admin a huge instance probably would leave it open for users to decide though.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nothing is forced on anyone. The user can choose a different instance that does federate with Threads, and still participate in the first instance.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What this post is asking for is exactly not that, that if you are in any instance that federates threads, then you shouldnt be able to interact with any that follows this posts petition

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

At this rate we'll extinguish ourselves before Meta even gets to the third E.

[–] noodles 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

@noodles @ModdedPhones Currently #threads does not make use of ActivityPub. Apparently there was not enough time to implement it in time for its scheduled release. That much said, I have put a preemptive block on threads.net so when it does go live, I won't forget.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

This is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Most of the activity on any given instance or community comes from outside of the instance. If you start cutting off instances because they are sharing their own stuff with Meta, then you will also be negatively impacting your own communities since the amount of active users will go down.

Most users won't react to something like this by joining your instance or an instance that you approve of (or, at least, currently approve of). They'll either find another community on an instance they're federated with or they'll switch to another social media platform. The latter becomes more likely depending on how many instances end up on either "side" of the issue. Although most user accounts are relatively new, it's still a pain to switch over to something else once you've gotten used to something.

The scale of defederation you propose, especially this early in the fediverse, would be enough to turn off a lot of folks from federation. If admins are just going to defederate from each other at the first sign of disagreement, that weakens my faith in the fediverse.

I absolutely believe that instances should not federate with meta's stuff. The largest servers had enough issues when we were getting new users in the thousands. Meta will likely bring in users in the millions. However, it makes no difference to me if another instance federates with Meta.

[–] Aurix 5 points 1 year ago

What if you are on Meta's payroll and want to start this so the Fediverse destroys itself from within? Gotya, sucky Zucc! Nice try. /s

For real, can't this Meta train derail next to the Titanic already? Joining an open communication standard platform and then complain the open standard communicates with outside. I really think you have been in the wrong place from the very beginning.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I expected the anti-Meta division to eventually demand recursive bans. The end result will be a hermit kingdom, and that's fine and dandy, but expect the Fedipact users to keep talking solely among themselves. (And the users that disagree to move elsewhere, making the hermit kingdom to become even more of an echo chamber)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Wtf, it doesn't make any absolute sense to defederate from instances that accepted to federate with threads!

load more comments
view more: next ›