Meta wants to consume the fediverse.
https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
"There are rumours that Meta would become "Fediverse compatible". You could follow people on Instagram from your Mastodon account"
Are there examples of this? Or is this just the fear? This all seems like a knee jerk reaction to something we are already avoiding by being on Lemmy/mastodon. The point of having decentralized instances isn't popularity. It's to avoid the corporate bullshit, which is inherently less popular.
Corporations generally try to follow the three Es which is bad for the community as a whole
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
If by examples, you mean supporting evidence that they will be part of the Fediverse:
https://www.slashgear.com/1332608/meta-threads-fediverse-new-explained/
And especially https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Screenshot-2023-07-05-at-6.17.21-PM.jpg
It's not ready yet, but it's clearly on their roadmap.
Thanks
If any instance becomes large enough to have an undue influence, which Meta would likely have, then they effectively control the entire ecosystem. At that point, it effectively stops being decentralized (See: The 51% Attack, although this wouldn't happen at a certain number/ratio). When it becomes convenient to them, they can pull the plug, and destroy the rest of the ecosystem that isn't theirs.
It's exactly what happened with XMPP and Google Talk.
Can we not simply block/filter meta servers/communities from the clients we use to access lemmy?
Clients, no. We have no way (currently) to individually block an instance, nor would it be effective in preventing this problem. Threads users, as a whole, need to be blocked from the Fediverse, so that Threads is not viewed as a way to interact with Mastodon users.
Our particular instances can defederate from Meta, which would stop certain issues - but not the EEE concerns that are usually brought up. It has to be a widespread block.
Maybe not in Lemmy but on mastodon individual users can block domains.
Also possible on kbin, which I appreciate because it allows granularity on a user-level.
The Connect app just got the ability to block instances, but that's not too usefull in addressing this problem.
If Facebook has over 50% of the users of fediverse on their instance and they decide to cut the rest off because we don't play nice with them it's not like we just wither away. The fediverse just splits in half where Facebook apologists are on one side and everyone else on the other. Basically where we are right now.
I'm sure there's enough people that want nothing to do with Facebook to keep our side of the fediverse active enough to be relevant.
Xmpp was a messaging protocol though, is that really comparable to decentralized forums?
XMPP was and still is a buggy mess, and the reason Google unlinked it was that while it had a fraction of the legit traffic, it was like 80% of trolling and spam and other crap.
And Google killed xmpp? No, xmpp killed xmpp, if you can kill something that's already dead.
People started using other networks because they got used to
With xmpp messages frequently got lost with no error, different clients having different encryption and encoding settings, different ways to encode and decode media... A complete mess.
People using that as an EEE example are clueless, or stupid.
Also, if meta starts federating, it will eventually stop it for the same reason Google stopped talking with other xmpp servers. Because it'll be the source of most of the crap, but very little legit content.
Yes, because it was a decentralized messaging protocol, like ActivityPub. The problem in the end was not the 'OG' XMPP Users but the new Google Talk users and how Google treated the protocol. This, theoretically, could happen with 'the fediverse', too.
I feel like a lot of people are fear mongering
Meta does not want to "consume the fediverse" , it's not worth it. Threads has been up for a day and it already has 10x the number of active users than mastodon. Mastodon and the fediverse as it currently stands, is a blip compared to instagram and Twitter. They're doing activitypub so they can claim there's a free market and avoid any anti-trust litigation for owning the three largest social media platforms. If that means a relatively small number of people stay on mastodon instead of threads that's a small price to pay.
People keep saying "threads should join Mastodon because then the famous people will join it."
I don't want Trump and Tate on Mastodon, thanks. I don't want all the bigots on Mastodon, thanks. I don't want millions of people on Mastodon, thanks.
I love how it's like the "old internet" when it was about discussing your interests, not about influencers.
That’s a great article thanks for linking it.
I’m curious how many other tools have been silently killed like that or destroyed that we’ll never know about.
I’m still shocked about the mastodon integration… “free” services make users the product so how does allowing anyone without an account to interact with your platform make sense monetarily if you don’t have some nefarious long game in mind.
Just wondering, how does that affect other instances? The whole point of the fediverse is that it’s decentralized.
I could see that it would cause a problem if half the content came from one instance and then that instance de-federated.
People might move to that instance to join the communities that they were previously following which could reduce the content on other instances as they would probably only use one main account.
Lots of coulds, mights and maybes there though.
There's a lot of anxiety because it's topical. Nearly ever user here I'd wager, myself included, just flipped to Lemmy as we watched Reddit break the camel's back.
I think what most people don't quite realize though is why this is happening. Reddit isn't just gearing up for an IPO, they're transitioning to the model spearheaded by Apple: you access their ecosystem exclusively through their platform.
Every large tech company is trying to play this game. They are developing hardware that gives sole access to their platform which in turn controls the experience and distribution of their content. Apple is best at it and massively profitable, but everyone is trying it. Most already have the software>>>content pipeline locked down, it's the hardware they can't get right.
That being said, Meta understands that the easiest way to grow Threads is to flip Instagram and Facebook users, not Mastadon users. The easiest way to keep users is not some defederation long con, it's to get your grandma and your spouse on their platform. The goal for Meta is to reach a critical mass tipping point, where as a society, most people agree you just have to have an account through them to be part of a larger conversation. They aren't trying to kill federalized platforms directly, because it's easier to skip that step and try to make every platform that isn't their own second tier at best. It's in their best interest to ignore everyone else and just on-board as much of their Instagram and Facebook base as possible in the next year.
What I love so much about the internet, is if something important is posted to one of these corporate based social media sites, I'll see a screen shot of it somewhere else, without ever having to engage with the primary source.
Threads will be part of the fediverse. This means that thread users can interact with Lemmy, Mastodon, and Kbin users.
There will be a huge number of thread users, it will probably quickly become the largest part of the fediverse.
Some people think that threads users will migrate to other fediverse applications and help the fediverse. Other people think that fediverse users will migrate to threads since it will have more features and the fediverse will die if threads defederates from everything.
Is there anything preventing instances from defederating from threads?
No, in fact many already have
So far, there are not that many, or at least I had expected more somehow… see here: https://fedipact.veganism.social/
Edit: Spelling / Grammar
There's a general, well founded, distrust of meta. Theres a general theory going around that they will embrace, extend and extinguish the fediverse. It will ride the wave of federation then when it gets large enough it will defederate or add some dumb feature that will break all compatibility. The problem with this strategy is it will bring them in front of a court for anti-conpetitive behavior, just like what happened to Microsoft every time it tried to do this, and possibly break up the whole company as instagram might get shaved off too. There's a reason Google doesn't try to do this with chrome or gmail, they learned it's a bad strategy from Microsoft. The reality is the fediverse as it stands right now is a blip to meta, a blip they can point to and say they aren't a monopoly, but just a blip, not some radical existential threat that needs to be destroyed.
Wow. Reading the heavyhanded corporate plays by people like musk, Reddit’s c-suite, and now the fears about Threads it’s like the corporatocracy is trying to crush and/or consume independent social media.
Because companies like Meta embrace, extend and extinguish.
Only if people voluntarily give up their privacy and switch to a threads account/app, right? I mean ultimately the argument is that Meta will develop features so cool that we’ll all give up our privacy for them?
Idk, it just seems like if that’s the fear, I think it will happen regardless and even defederating won’t really stop that. I feel like people will just make new accounts wherever the cool place to be is.
I’m all for defederating just because you don’t want to see or associate with that content though, that totally make sense.
Well, Meta said it already has 53 million sign ups for threads.
why do you think they care enough about the comparatively tiny amount here in the fediverse to do the whole embrace-extinguish stuff?
Same reason Spez is still doing damage control over 3% of his userbase leaving, up to and including signing up more bots to boost traffic and denounce the protests. It's not like he's losing a whole lot, he's kept multimillions of users (human and otherwise) to make his shareholders happy and his site will stumble along pretty ok for years. But in capitalism, especially the ad-driven digital sphere, eyes are everything.
Federating with the rest of us IS a blip in the grand scheme, but so was 3%. The fediverse existing outside of Threads carries the very significant risk that their users will sign up for their service and see the other platforms that are just as nice without being ad-soaked, subscription-based, and demanding your real name while they sell every ounce of your info.
One of us is going to be leeching users from the other and meta will not like this, so they're liable to make damn sure it's them. It wouldn't really shock me to see them neglect to upkeep federation with non-meta instances while they attempt to charm users away with a recognizable, high-traffic platform full of bells and whistles.
Couldn't any features they add be copied by other instances?
their data will (maybe) be available, but as far as actual features threads is a whole different thing
think of it like kbin and lemmy: we can interact between them, but if lemmy adds a feature kbin doesn’t get it
so if threads adds a feature, mastodon and the rest of the fediverse doesn’t automatically get it
actually pinned posts i think is a good example for kbin and lemmy: they both have pinned posts, but they’re slightly different and therefor don’t operate correctly together
does anyone know about the tumblr activity pub federation that was meant to happen?
Simplifying Complexity, One Answer at a Time!
Rules
