this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
22 points (100.0% liked)

sh.itjust.works Main Community

7584 readers
1 users here now

Home of the sh.itjust.works instance.

Matrix

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Meta/Instagram launched a new product called Threads today (working title project92). It adds a new interface for creating text posts and replying to them, using your Instagram account. Of note, Meta has stated that Threads plans to support ActivityPub in the future, and allow federation with ActivityPub services. If you actually look at your Threads profile page in the app your username has a threads.net tag next to it - presumably to support future federation.

Per the link, a number of fediverse communities are pledging to block any Meta-directed instances that should exist in the future. Thus instance content would not be federated to Meta instances, and Meta users would not be able to interact with instance content.

I'm curious what the opinions on this here are. I personally feel like Meta has shown time and time again that they are not very good citizens of the Internet; beyond concerns of an Eternal September triggered by federated Instagram, I worry that bringing their massive userbase to the fediverse would allow them to influence it to negative effect.
I also understand how that could be seen to go against the point of federated social media in the first place, and I'm eager to hear more opinions. What do you think?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I strongly support basically firewalling the fediverse from anything Meta/Twitter/MS/Google/ as a default behavior. They will 100%, without question make some sort of attempt to co-opt, corrupt, and monetize this ecosystem unless their interference is actively mitigated and corralled.

And sure, maybe there can be a collection of instances that do federate with Big Tech… but to be blunt, I’d look at those mostly as canaries in the coal mine.

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

Exactly this. It would be the height of stupidity to create this space/network that frees us from so much of the hyperconglomerate bullshit only to invite them in willingly.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

In the 1990s, Microsoft had an internal strategy called Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Microsoft saw the emerging Internet as a threat to their business, so they wanted to kill it. The basic idea was:

  • Embrace: Develop software compatible with an existing standard
  • Extend: Add features that are not part of the standard, creating interoperability issues
  • Extinguish: Using their dominant market share, snuff out competitors who don't or can't support the non-standard protocol

It was working for Microsoft, and was a contributing factor in their killing off Netscape. For those too young to remember, Mozilla is the open-source "liferaft" that Netscape created before their business was destroyed by Microsoft. But, these days it's effectively controlled by Google, who provides 85% of their funding, as long as they keep Google as the default Firefox search engine and don't rock the boat.

The only thing that stopped Microsoft from destroying the open Internet was the antitrust case brought against them by the US Department of Justice. Antitrust action is the only thing that has kept innovation happening in tech. The antitrust case against IBM from 1969 to 1982 allowed for the rise of Microsoft. The antitrust case against Microsoft allowed for the rise of Google. Many people think we're overdue for strong antitrust actions against Google and Facebook/Meta.

Facebook bought out every social competitor they could: Instagram, WhatsApp, etc. They can't buy out the Fediverse, but they have to see it as an existential threat. Because of that, they're undoubtedly going to try to use their near-monopoly status to kill off the Fediverse.

The "Embrace" stage will likely be just implementing ActivityPub. That will convince a lot of people that Meta is really on their side, and are working hard to be a good Fediverse citizen. They'll probably even hire people who are current developers working on the ActivityPub standard, or who have developed key ActivityPub apps.

The "Extend" stage will probably involve adding features to "ActivityPub Alpha" which Threads uses but nothing else uses. It might involve some Meta-specific things, like embedding Instagram in an unusual way. It might involve something that is really expensive for an independent server, but affordable if you're a multi-billion dollar company, like some kind of copyright check, or flagging if something is AI-generated. The features they're likely to add won't be offensive, they'll probably be good ideas. It's just that they'll add them before going through the standards process, and so standards-compliant ActivityPub implementations will seem old and outdated. That will convince many people to move their accounts to Threads, or will at the least reduce the growth for non-Threads ActivityPub.

The "Extinguish" phase will be like when Google shut down Google Reader. Why bother having a standards-compliant way of doing things when usage is so low?

So... yeah, block Meta.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I vote to defederate. If I want to see meta shit I can sign up there but I'd delete this account and go find some other instance that chose not to federate with them. I want to choose when/if I interact with meta, not end up in yet another place where they dominate everything else

(Realized I posted from the wrong account. My opinion stays the same for both my accounts on sh.itjust works and reddthat and any others I may join)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Isn't one of the points of fediverse is to get away from big tech shit?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

This is just like centralised crypto exchanges. Same thing

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (16 children)

Please for the love of Internet connectivity as a whole: block anything remotely attached to Facebook, not just the instance, but in general Internet daily life.

Zuck should die forgotten.

It does not go against the point of the fediverse to do so, either. Why would the ability to do this be baked into the code if it was not the intent to use it in certain situations? This would be a perfect use.

I can see maybe certain instances wanting it for whatever reason, but I'll be packing up and moving to one that blocks it if this one allows it.

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

Agreed. With the nature of the Fediverse, defederating with anything from Meta doesn't really restrict access for those who actually wish to interact with them. They can simply join their next nefarious venture.

The drawbacks to interacting with a company that so obviously only chases profit above all else far outweigh any "benefits " of their content.

Ser Robin had the right idea: bravely run away.

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

Brave, brave sir Robin.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

I won't maintain a membership on any platform that is federated with Meta in any way. That's an absolute, 100% dealbreaker. Same with Microsoft, Google, Amazon or Apple. Anything they touch turns to assgarbage.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Defederate with anything that remotely has to do with zuck

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

We should only federate with entities acting in good faith, and we cannot trust an entity such as facebook to act in good faith.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Defederate and preferably also defenestrate.

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

Meta has repeatedly introduced features intended to scrape larger amounts of data about our lives and tie it all into one big profile that they can sell. This area of the internet feels like one of the few remaining areas that they haven't reached, and I'd bet everything I have that's why they're introducing this. I couldn't be more strongly against allowing them a way to link my data here with the data they have from my usage of their existing products. While I understand the idea of open federation to allow disparate communities to interact, one of the lines I'll draw is letting a massive corporation in like that.

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

They'll still be able to scrape the fediverse and all instances without threads federating with them. Defederating doesn't stop their access to your PUBLIC data on the fediverse.

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

the whole reason im on fedi is to get away from megacorp social media and seeing them starting to creep into the space is kinda sad. I will drop any server that would federate with them, but hoping that is still a viable option and not just me turning off my router forever.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

It's so insane, Twitter gets destroyed, reddit is fucked, and now just as I moved away from all that these cucks want to move here? Fuck off.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The day this instance federates with Meta is the day I leave. They, and any other big corporations, can fuck all the way off. We have seen where that path leads time and time again.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I just joined this place this week, fleeing reddit of course. So my vote may not be worth much. But if this place becomes meta-adjacent then I'll see myself out. I have no desire to interact with Mark "move fast and break adolescent girls' self esteem" Zuckerberg.

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

"I also understand how that could be seen to go against the point of federated social media in the first place…"

Federating with Meta is different from federating with individuals. It's like letting corporations be treated the same as natural persons for the purposes of voting in political elections and exercising other civic participation rights.

Natural persons may have a variety of motivations for federating. Corporations have only one: to increase profit.

And please don't say "federate now, revisit later if needed." Recall the fable about the scorpion and the rabbit facing a raging flood. Said the scorpion, "oh please, rabbit, let me ride on your back as you swim across." Rabbit said "no, you'll sting me and I'll die." Scorpion said "no I won't; we're both in danger; I have children at home; we both want to live." Rabbit said "okay, if you promise not to sting me." So scorpion climbed onto rabbit's back, and halfway across the flood, scorpion gave rabbit a lethal sting. Rabbit asked why, and scorpion shrugged; "you knew what I was when you let me onto your back."

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Defederate unequivocally.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

fuck the zuck and all his instances. block the fecesbook and its nine other names

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

I came to the fediverse to get away from Meta and Twitter and Google and the like.

So personally I'd prefer if they stayed out of here.

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

I am reposting my answer from another thread : Nothing good will come from meta ( or any other Gafa Microsoft included), ever. They will alway look for a way to corrupt any social media to their favor in order try to dominate the Web. At this point of the internet history anyone giving a speck of trust to them is dream walking into a disaster waiting to happen. There are already trying to bring Insta and activityPub service lol , and they didn't haven't started yet.

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

I have a lot of feelings about this matter. But my main concern is that I value the idea of privacy, anonimity and the right to reveal as much of yourself online as you are willing to do so. And Meta has shown time and time again that they are actively against the very concept of letting people be.
Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but they will find a way to ruin this for everyone if it helps their bottom line.

On top of that, it's opening the floodgates to a stream of content that will most likely drown out the individuality of our communities. We're still growing and building, I would love for us to have our own place before the Meta masses join.

edited: spelling

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

The privacy factor indeed needs to be looked at more. I sought refuge in the Fediverse to prevent FB from getting enough data points to profile me down to the soul. I'm pretty sure a huge margin of users here came for the same. Federating with such a cancerous entity defeats the purpose of migrating to here to quite an extent.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

An important reminder of the right play here. If we are to keep the fediverse out of the hands of enshitification, we need to stay away from letting corporates play the game. Don’t federate.

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

To answer the question in post directly - I think it's a bit daft. I understand and support the intention. In fact, I've already blocked threads.net, assuming that's going to be the actual endpoint. But the pact itself I find useless and a tad childish.

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

I would generally think it should be the user's decision, but this is meta we're talking about. I don't know if I can consciencely be a part of an instance that is providing them with a free stream of quality content, thus making their platform more enticing and valuable. Even if I block threads, I am adding value to an instance where some percentage of the users will not block threads. I would be actively attracting more users to help meta. If we do not defederate, I will leave until that changes. Hopefully this makes it seem a little less childish to you.

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

I dont think anyone should be federating with threads.meta. They dont have good intentions and are either just using the activitypub protocol because it was there and they needed something fast to take advantage of twitter quickly or because they actively are trying to take over and destroy the activitypub protocol. Either way the fediverse gains nothing from federating with them.

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

I'll put it this way:

  • on the one hand, there's React.
  • on the other hand, there's React.

Or, to translate for those of us who don't speak "asshole":

  • Facebook has contributed to open source, they've created one of the most popular javascript frameworks around: React, or ReactJS. This is software made by Facebook, possibly even still maintained by Facebook, which you can use in your site today for free (and no, it doesn't make your site look like facebook).
  • On the other hand, React became its own monster, with some people misunderstanding it as the end-all-be-all framework. Also, it's nice but it's a lot and arguably better frameworks now exist. My point was that the company carried more weight on this project than maybe it should have.

There are good arguments for blocking Facebook as a whole on the web, such as cookie tracking. I don't like Facebook, but I guess I would consider any people who have made the jump to federated platforms as potentially missing out on interacting with their forever-facebooked-friends. Seriously, why can't people just try another thing alongside Facebook? Why do they have to be ride or die facebook-fiends? I digress..

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't think the comparison to react makes a ton of sense - Facebook created react as an open source project, but once you download react, you have a copy of it for yourself and you don't need to check in with Facebook any further. They don't own your react app or its data.

I may be misunderstanding, but it sounds like threads will not be like that: they will be using an open standard that they did not create for a social network that will track you and gather your data every time you use it.

(I am for defederation)

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

From a post on Mastodon comparing privacy policies. Meta gonna pillage the village.

https://mastodon.social/@llebrun/110664586216685040

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Ok dear gods whyyyyyyyyyyyy does a social media app need access to all that. Burn it down. Burn it all to the ground

Don't federated with Meta

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I am 100% OK with defederating everything run by Meta: They are a blight on the Internet.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I seriously doubt meta is going to have an open federation policy anyway. It's definitely going to be a tiered white list of Meta-approved Activitypub apps and instances. With built-in monetization for devs in the Activitypub "market."

Honestly it's what reddit should have done if they were smart. Figure out a way to monetize through the API by pulling third party apps into a walled garden.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

The zucc better keep his sticky fingers away

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Do not federate with anything Meta

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

I'm all for it. Ive heard arguments for and against interacting with meta instances in this way, and I won't pretend to fully understand all the details.

Still, Meta has proven that they aren't trustworthy time and time again. I'd really just prefer to remove myself from them as much as possible.

load more comments
view more: next ›