this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023
361 points (90.0% liked)

Fediverse

28562 readers
544 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

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
 

((I'm not an expert, I've been reading up on things as much as I can. If there's an error, I'll happily correct it!))


TLDR:

  • Nearly all of us distrust Meta and have the same broader goals
  • We need to pick the best move to go against powerful companies like Meta
  • Defederation may not be the right move, and it might even help Meta move forward (and more easily perform EEE)
  • There are other options that we can spend our energy on
  • It doesn't matter for Lemmy (yet), this is more a conversation for Mastodon, Firefish and Kbin

We've been getting a LOT of posts on this, but the misconceptions make it harder for us to decide what to do. If we're going to try and protect the Fediverse against large, well funded companies like Meta, figuring out the right action is important. We need to actually look at the options, consider the realistic outcomes, and plan around that.

I'm willing to bet around 95% of users on Lemmy and Mastodon CHOSE to be here because we understand the threat Meta/Facebook poses, and we want to do something about it. That's not in question here.

So in that sense, please be kind to the other user you are replying to. The vast majority of us share the same goal here. When we disagree, we disagree on the best path forward and not the goal. Wanting to stay federated DOES NOT mean the user wants to help Meta or thinks that Meta is here for our benefit.


Misconception: Defederation will hinder Meta's EEE

It might, but not necessarily, and it might even help the EEE. Here's a link to some history of EEE, what it means, and some examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish. I'd recommend at least skimming it because it's interesting (and because this isn't the only fight)

Assuming Meta is doing an EEE move, they're in the embrace stage. That’s not about us embracing them, it’s about them embracing the protocol, which they can do whether we stay federated or not.

Defederation can tell newcomers that the defederated instance is an island, and they’re better off joining the place where they can talk to their friends and see the content they want. We saw this early during the Reddit exodus with Beehaw, where many users hopped instances away from Beehaw.

Meta can more easily embrace if more people actively use their platform. They can more easily extend if we're not around to explain why extending is a poisonous action. Being federated can allow us to encourage users to ditch Meta’s platform and join an open one (ex. Mastodon, Firefish, etc.)


Misconception: Defederation is the only move

Defederation is the first option that comes to mind. It sounds simple, it is loud and newsworthy, and it can be done with the click of a mouse. But if it is a bad action, then what are the good actions?

  1. Don't let them have a monopoly over the use of ActivityPub. Grow the other platforms: The extend stage only works when the platform gets a near monopoly over use of the standard. That brings up the first action. If there are enough users, services and resources on things like Mastodon/Lemmy, then Meta (or any other company) can't just extend the spec without causing their users to ditch Threads to stay connected to the content they want to see.
    • Reach out to organizations in your area or line of work. Help them join Mastodon or other relevant Fediverse platforms. I'm sure the for-profit companies put money into this process, so brainstorm and reach out
    • Add your Fediverse accounts to the bio of your other accounts, and share posts from the Fediverse elsewhere

As long as there is a healthy community away from Meta (ex. what we have right now), then they can't extend & extinguish.

  1. Protect the Standards and share why it is important
  • Share posts from experts about strict adherence to standards, support regulatory and legal advocacy (interoperability requirements etc.), and educate other users about the risks.

(I didn't want to say more here because I'm not an expert, I'm happy to edit more points in)


Misconception: We should still defederate because of Privacy Risks

Not necessarily (and likely not at all?)

Meta is notorious for gathering data and then abusing that data, so this is an issue to consider. However, the way that activitypub works, the outgoing data is publicly available. Defederating with Meta doesn't prevent that, and federating doesn't give them any more data than they could get otherwise.


Misconception: Lemmy instances need to decide

This is a big point: It doesn't really matter for Lemmy right now, one way or another.

It's more of an issue when data starts coming IN to Lemmy from Mastodon and Meta's Threads (or out from Lemmy to Threads). See below

Edit to add: For now it might even be good to defederate from Lemmy as a symbolic gesture. My instance is defederated, and I don't plan on trying to change that. Ultimately it doesn't change much


Legitimate risks from Federation with Meta, and more effective ways to counter them

  • Algorithmic Amplification: Meta's history of using algorithms that prioritize engagement can amplify harmful or divisive content. These algorithms are not public like it is with Mastodon and other FOSS platforms.

  • Misinformation and Content Moderation: All Fediverse platforms will have to work on content moderation and misinformation. Platforms like Meta, focussed on profit and advertising, will likely moderate in a way that protects their income. Those moderation decisions will be federated around.

  • Commercialization and User Exploitation: Meta's for-profit nature means it's incentivized to maximize user engagement, at the expense of our well-being.

  • Additional Data on how the free fediverse interacts with their platform (this one is harder to make a counter for)

Counters:

  • Promote user control over their feeds, and develop USEFUL but safe and open algorithms for the feeds
  • Flag content and users from risky platforms, with a little warning icon and explanation (ex. 'Content is from a for-profit platform, and it may ___')
  • Implement features so that users can opt in or opt out from seeing content from risky platforms. In particular on explore/discover/public feeds, so it doesn't affect content the user is following.
  • Develop strict community guidelines that can get Meta (and other companies) sent into the 'blocked by default' bins mentioned above. (edit: There's a good point here that if Meta'a Threads is full of hatred or poor moderation, then blocking them is the right move)

Final point: Evaluate things critically. Don't even just take my word for it. I doubt Meta or other groups care enough about Lemmy yet to spread disinformation here, and every post I've seen promoting defederation feels like a good faith attempt for something they believe in. But it's still worth thinking about what we're supporting.

Sometimes what feels like a good move might not help, and could even make things worse.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dual_sport_dork 97 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (9 children)

This entire argument is bullshit. Meta needs to be an island from our perspective. Let them do their thing over there, we'll do our thing over here. Their goal is to lure (probably former reddit or twitter) users to Threads and then cut off the greater Fediverse as a whole once their user base is established and much larger than ours. And they want to use our numbers to boost their for profit platform to make it appear more successful.

Separation from these kinds of corporate entities is exactly what the Fediverse is about. We can talk about "open" all we like but there is already a short list of bad actors we don't allow here: Nazis and fascists, pedos and kiddie diddlers, etc. We can add Meta to that list as well.

We don't want them interacting with us at all. Get out the hammer and ban them. Entirely.

I'll add an edit to say this: I say that defederation is not extreme enough. They need to be blocked. Instances need to implement ToS and licensing that prohibits them from hoovering up and regurgitating our content. We need to start outright blocking Meta at the network level. Whatever the hell it takes. Line in the sand. No means no.

No Meta. Ever.

Think of this: In the past, we have never had any choice other than to roll over and accept whatever bullshit the major social media companies push on us. If you want to communicate, if you want to use any platform, if you want to be in, you had to deal with them and their system. Because they were big and you were little, and what are you going to do about it? You have no choice but to roll over.

Well, we don't have to roll over anymore. We have this one -- and believe me, only this one -- opportunity to unequivocally tell them NO. We are not your product. You have no value to us. You aren't a monopoly anymore. We do not need your corporate influence, we do not need your corporate bullshit. We are free of you, and we don't need you.

Another edit: Oh, look. What do I find right at the top of my feed first thing this morning? Why, it's yet another example of Meta being evil. And you still want them to have influence in the Fediverse?

[–] [email protected] 39 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

As an instance owner I have defederated preemptively from threads. I take the same logic as ‘dont do a deal with the devil’ or ‘dont negotiate with terrorists’. Sure maybe you get lucky and win some but the odds are stacked against you. Instead I am more interested in cultivating slowly what lemmy is as a platform without some companies influence. We are doing ok right now. Ae are slowly growing right now. The only reason they are interested in us is because they see the potential. We dont need them to foster that potential. Lets focus on doing this on our own. For better or worse, at least we can say we did it our way for what we ultimately believed in if we stand on our own and do it.

And as an aside. I dont need a seconder to agree with me or tell me this is the right decision. I have done enough and seen enough in my life to make this call on my own and stand by that decision. Its not relevant to me if anyone agrees with it.

[–] dual_sport_dork 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Well, I agree with it anyway. So there.

This is the way.

Plus, it's your instance so it's your call.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Their goal is to lure (probably former reddit or twitter) users to Threads

Their goal is to take users from Twitter, and by doing that they are opening the opportunity to get users from Twitter to the Fediverse.

There has to be at least one major news org who is looking at this and thinking "well, if Threads does bring a few hundred million people to the Fediverse, we'll be able to drop Twitter and integrate our CMS with the Fediverse like Wordpress."

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The ToS part sounds good, and I was looking into something like that a while back.

As for the rest, could you share which parts of the argument is unfounded, or why it's "entirely BS"?

Not to be hostile, but this is the kind of comment I'm talking about above.

  • I absolutely despise Meta too, I'm trying to figure out the best way to limit their effects on the Fediverse and keep growing the good thing we have. As much as I want to do the big symbolic action, it feels performative and ineffective at best.
  • It's not really former Reddit users they're after but rather Twitter. Lemmy is still separated and it doesn't matter for us either way (for now)
[–] dual_sport_dork 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (11 children)

The notion that anyone should interact with Meta at all is enough. You lost me right after that part. Anything after that is just meaningless apologetic noise for the sake of appearing nuanced. That's the bullshit.

No means no. Never means never. No Meta. The extremism, the "big symbolic action," it's all warranted. Block them. Block them forever.

P.s. You're allowed to use cuss words on the internet. Tell your friends!

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

and then cut off the greater Fediverse as a whole once their user base is established and much larger than ours.

I have bad news for you, then. Or good news, or whatever. Threads already has 160 million users. I thought one of the talking points was that Threads was going to overwhelm the Fediverse when it connected?

We don’t want them interacting with us at all.

Don't speak for everyone. The whole point of the Fediverse is that everyone can have different opinions and nobody can unilaterally cut someone else out of it.

If you don't want to interact with Threads, there are plenty of instances that have already defederated and lots of clients allow users to block by instance. You don't have to. But if someone else does want to engage with Threads users, you shouldn't try to stop that.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Threads already has 160 million users.

That's weird, these numbers aren't taken into account on that graph: Threads' user base has plummeted more than 80%. Meta's app ended July with just 8 million daily active users.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

just want to clarify something:

However, the way that activitypub works, the outgoing data is publicly available. Defederating with Meta doesn't prevent that,

there is a technical solution to this in the form of authorized fetch: https://hub.sunny.garden/2023/06/28/what-does-authorized_fetch-actually-do/

mastodon implements it, pleroma/akkoma probably implements it, pixelfed implements it, firefish and iceshrimp implement it (sharkey has a PR implementing it opened just today), gotosocial not only implements it but enforces it, with no ability to turn it off

notably, none of the threadiverse software implement it, and no software other than the aforementioned gotosocial enable it by default.

[–] Carighan 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah but the point was probably more that the data is intentionally public. It shouldn't matter whether Meta gets it through federation or opening the web page and reading it. It's public information, just publicized automatically.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

you can disable the webpage and unauthorized API if you so choose. mastodon and pleroma/akkoma provide these settings. gotosocial hides all posts with an unlisted visibility from public pages.

authorized fetch only provides protection for activitypub, it's just a single component of a layered stack of protection you can enable depending on your exact threat model.

the privacy threat model of Lemmy is significantly different from a microblog, which is the current target of threads.

(also have none of you heard of consent?)

cc @[email protected] this reply also applies to your reply

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago

Meta could be running a completely ordinary Mastodon or Lemmy server and monitoring data through that. Or they're using the API of some ordinary server. Or they're simply scraping the web directly.

I can understand using stuff like Authorized Fetch to control bandwidth, but this obsession with hiding data that has been explicitly posted on a public forum is frankly kind of weird.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago

Interesting thank you

I also saw something about Pixelfed adding stuff to help (just a few hours ago?)

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I fully agree that it doesn't matter for Lemmy right now. The issue is mostly Mastodon and Kbin, as both compete directly with Threads; and in a smaller scale Friendica, Matrix and PixelFed as they compete with FB/WhatsApp/IG.

The main reason why I support defederation is to not have users in Mastodon relying on contacts and content from Threads at all. Because, once Threads pulls off the plug (eventually they will want to), Mastodon won't be some small but stable network; it'll be a shrinking one, and that's way worse.

[–] Carighan 8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Because, once Threads pulls off the plug (eventually they will want to), Mastodon won’t be some small but stable network; it’ll be a shrinking one, and that’s way worse.

I don't think that's effective.

Scenerio: federated
Mastodon users stay on Mastodon, but interact with Threads. Threads eventually pulls the plug on federation. Assuming Threads ever reached critical mass, a vast amount of mastodon users now create threads accounts and move over, because well, their social circle is there.

Scenario: defederated
Assuming threads gains critical mass, a vast majority of mastodon users now create threads accounts and move over, because well, their social circle is there.

The impetus is the social engagement. Social media without the social is not really useful, so if all their friends are on platform xyz, they'll use platform xyz. It does not matter in the slightest (at least, at scale!) what that platform is. WhatsApp, iMessage, vBulletin, Reddit, whatever. Sure, splintergroups exist but their of ignorable size either way, meaning the people who are currently sticking to Mastodon would not move fully over to threads in either scenario - that's why they're here right now, basically.

I'm more worried about the load if it truly gets big and mastodon and threads interact a lot, tbh.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago

This is another good point, and I'm not sure how best to fix that. It's so hard to get people to swap platforms, and I suspect Meta will put money into getting key people on their platform.

The flagging thing might help? HCI and social networks are so nebulous that it's hard to predict what might happen. I'm not totally confident on my stance either, just that there's nuance here

[–] [email protected] 29 points 11 months ago (7 children)

I think we should encourage politicians, governments and public figures to either self host or use non-threads instances. That way, Threads cannot easily shut off AP support or screw around too badly or their own content will decline.

Right now, social.bbc is a thing. Hopefully when threads launches activitypub, they'd notice that having a presence on both threads and their own instance is pointless, and prefer their own instance

[–] [email protected] 21 points 11 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Im pretty sure meta give zero fucks about joining the fediverse beyond trying to destroy it. I imagine they only started threads to nullify it by either proving it doesnt work (threads looks pretty garbage) or they want to control the content where mainstream fediverse will never take off.

Im here because i liked reddit but hated being a product. Meta/facebook was zero percent of that initial switch calculation as i havent been on their stuff for nearly a decade. The api shutdown ay the alien site was the last straw. I dont want to interact or give data to facebook/meta. Just my two cents.

[–] TropicalDingdong 18 points 11 months ago (15 children)

I want to throw this into the mix, but something that kept getting ignored early on during the reddit departure was the implications of defederation on how that effects networked systems.

It's part of the math of social graphs, but bad faith instances and teolling, severely impacted Lemmy's initial ability to catch on. By defederaring you massively reduced the total size of the network interactions that take place ( even if it's very important to do so ).

This has the potential to allow meta controlled instances to rapidly out populate non meta controlled instances. From there it's only a matter of time before they end up with a seat on the activity hub team. Then we're back where we started.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 11 months ago

I'm ok with instances defederating because it gives them time to wait and see how to handle the influx and what other unknowns might happen, but I agree that it's just not a strategy to stop EEE. We need to do more and do it smartly.

To me it's like a trade war, we have a couple strategies we can do. Isolationism is one of few options that I can think of that has only failed historically. I'm ok with protectionism even better when it's just reusable user protections, like automating ad blocks, sponsored content blocks/labels, etc, but also maybe we do things like not federation communities from Threads, definitely blocking anything that isn't in the open spec.

[–] ChunkMcHorkle 17 points 11 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think a lot of your post is spot on but one thing I do disagree with you on:

Meta doesn't do anything "for fun" it does everything for profit. If their exec board thought that promoting well-being and good mental health was more profitable, meta would do that instead of the other shit you talk about. A minor nitpick of your post but I think it's always worth bearing in mind that companies like meta are singularly motivated by greed.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 months ago

Evaluate things critically, okay let’s do that.

Pros: Meta doesn’t exist here.

Cons:

[–] hperrin 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I like your take. Unfortunately, I don’t see a way forward where Meta isn’t at least partially successful in extinguishing the fediverse. We’ll probably be fine, because we’re here now and our shit works, but the most likely scenario I see is in the future the common perception of fediverse microblogging apps will be, “oh, that place where users can never see when I’m using ___ feature.” Then it will be harder to attract new users, just like it was so hard for Firefox to attract users when sites were broken because of IE’s EEE tactics.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago

I vote yes because I don't want to see threads posts.

[–] CosmicCleric 9 points 11 months ago

Well written, well said.

[–] Brkdncr 8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I’m mostly afraid of spam. I don’t mind if a company wants to advertise to their own user base, but I definitely don’t want to deal with spam from elsewhere. I hope the protocol addresses this in a way.

I’d like to see the fediverse embrace and extend, rather than meta.

Money is going to be involved at some point, better make the rules now before meta does.

[–] Carighan 8 points 11 months ago

Money is going to be involved at some point, better make the rules now before meta does.

That's a really good point. Defederation might delay things, but should the fediverse as a concept take off, we will see big commercial players move in. One way or another. Need to be ahead of the game and regulate it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago

Money is going to be involved at some point, better make the rules now before meta does.

Totally agreed

It's harder to change things up once there are well known rules for how things should work.

I’m mostly afraid of spam. I don’t mind if a company wants to advertise to their own user base, but I definitely don’t want to deal with spam from elsewhere. I hope the protocol addresses this in a way.

Yea same. I'm not sure how, but it'll only get worse once bigger ones move in. Maybe user curated filters like with uBlock? It might be hard to pick out the useful from the spam if there was a system that could be gamed

[–] dipshit 8 points 11 months ago (7 children)

AFAIK, Meta cannot modify algorithms in lemmy code / created in networks inside lemmy instances (if that’s s thing) unless meta starts running those instances themselves. No doubt, using meta’s instance and client will let meta do what it wants to do.

I think the harder problem here is meta isn’t a curated collection of 300+ instances we can block when we don’t like the instance (e.g., instances != facebook communities). Meta is just going to come online with a large instance with millions of users. It’s kind of hard to judge all of meta users at once, as an instance provider. So, I guess instances who don’t want meta, don’t get meta. Fair.

I agree with all the misconceptions you’ve cleared up, and you’ve also made a great case for why people would want to join a smaller private instance instead of facebook. I guess I just don’t see the present threat to the fediverse with meta (aside from instances being bombarded with trash that needs to be defederated from that instance). There’s absolutely an existential threat, but the beauty of open source is that as long as there are devs willing to work on it, it can still exist - meta cannot buy the current version of lemmy we are all using and prevent it from being run, for example.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] yuki2501 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Wrong. degeneration might be the ONLY way to prevent Faceboom from pulling an EEE.

You just don't invite a vampire into your house. Consider the nazi bar analogy.

[–] Not_mikey 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

degeneration might be the ONLY way to prevent Faceboom

So we should just start posting furry porn to try and scare them off?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago

The new 196 rule, you must post furry porn before signing out from Lemmy.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

image was just for the thumbnail, hope it doesn't distract from the message

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] mob 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I like how amplified divisive content, misinformation and content moderation is the "legitimate" risks like it's not already an issue here.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's a risk everywhere, but they are incentivized to act a certain way because of profit and advertising while other platforms can focus on fixing it without the potential conflict. We don't need to pick between shareholder profits and what's better for users

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] antidote101 5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

The island on the left is Facebook right?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] bouh 5 points 11 months ago

I'm pretty sur meta doesn't care to federate. I bet they will even defederate rather aggressively to enforce their moderation.

IMO federating is a good move to steal users from it. There is no user to steal for meta, people here are here because they fled the other platforms. Meta users though are unaware of this other world, and they can easily be brought in if they can discover it.

load more comments
view more: next ›