ThatOneKirbyMain2568

That's because I'm not fully sure on how people should act in respect to this Threads situation (which is what got me thinking about all of this in the first place). In the recent past, I was all "defederate defederate defederate defederate," but now considering that multiple large platforms (like Flipboard) will be joining in, it's less likely that one company will control a majority of activity. Of course, you don't need a majority for there to be a problem — just a large enough portion for other instances to have issues defederating due to the amount of content they'd lose — but a mere large portion and not a supermajority may not be reason to defederate. Of course, there are other things to consider as well, and I'll probably make yet another wall of text with my new thoughts on how instances should handle this in the near future. For now, this thread is for me to share the ideals that I think people on the fediverse should prioritize and for others to discuss what they think on the matter.

Of course, these platforms have only federated a handful of accounts, so the "chaos" right now is in the reaction and discourse. However, I don't think it's unjustified.

I've outlined my main issues with Threads federation here, and while I'm not as sold on preemptive defederation as I was when I made the post, I still find it reasonable to be concerned about about for-profit companies controlling a vast majority of the content, especially when (A) the users making that content may be unaware that they're on the fediverse to begin with and (B) companies like Meta have a terrible track record and would have incentive to grab a ton of users by defederating if they're able (though with so many other parties joining in, whether they'll be able to pull something off like that is becoming more questionable, hence me being less sure of the need to defederate).

Nah, just some teen making very inefficient use of his time

Bad bad bad bad bad bad.

I firmly believe that no instance should harbor a large portion of activity on the fediverse, as it makes it difficult for other instances to defederate from them (as users there would lose a massive portion of the content that they see) and easy for them to take users from other instances by just ceasing to federate (as users on other instances would have to go to the large instance to keep the level of activity their used to). And that's in regards to microblogs like on Mastodon.

With communities, it'd be so much worse.

If Reddit federates, and Lemmy/Kbin instances don't defederate en masse, almost every active community will be on reddit.com. No reason to post on minecraft@lemmy.world with its 5 posts a week when Minecraft@reddit.com has millions of subscribers and thousands upon thousands of active users. Nearly all activity will go to subreddits, the exceptions being from people who have blocked Reddit or on communities pertaining to non-Reddit platforms/instances (e.g., kbinMeta@kbin.social). And if Reddit defederates after that, the threadiverse will be a ghost town. People are already (and justifiably) concerned that too many people and big communities are on lemmy.world. Just imagine Reddit coming in with all of its users.

If Reddit federates, it's just gonna straight up be embrace and extinguish — no extend required.

@rah Maybe I'm not being clear. When I say that "we" means "the fediverse in general", I don't mean that everyone should gather 'round and come to a consensus on what values they should uphold and who should be excluded. This is obviously something that should occur on an instance or individual level, as (A) there are a large variety of different people and instances on the fediverse with different priorities and (B) as you stated, anyone can implement ActivityPub and tap into the fediverse if they want to, regardless of what anyone else thinks.

What I mean is that people should be thinking about what they think instance owners should aim for and form their opinions on the current situation based on that. My goal with this post is to show what I think an "ideal fediverse" looks like and have others share their thoughts. Having thoughts about what's healthy for people on the fediverse and having wants based on that isn't misunderstanding the technology — it's simply expressing preferences.

@rah I'd say the fediverse in general, particularly those on instances with microblogging (as they're the ones affected by Threads, Flipboard, etc.). Obviously, everyone won't have the same values, but I think it's still important that everyone at least thinks about what they want the fediverse to grow into.

1. People on or entering the fediverse understand the variety of available options.

If someone isn't aware that they're on the fediverse, then they can't really benefit from the openness and customizability that it provides. A mastodon.social user who knows nothing of the fediverse won't know that they can move to a different Mastodon instance or interact with the same content using Friendica, as they won't know that the options exist to begin with.

Furthermore, people will have more incentive to preserve an open fediverse if they're aware that it exists. If the fediverse is filled with people who, for example, think that Threads is all there is or didn't come to Threads with an awareness of the fediverse, the fediverse becomes much easier to undermine.

1. There is no downside to using free and open-source platforms over proprietary ones.

If someone wants to join a closed-source instance run by a for-profit company, they should absolutely be able to. However, that should ideally be because they prefer an instance moderated by Meta, not because the free and open-source alternatives are relatively lacking. Open-source software is extremely important in order for users to have options and agency, so we should aim for these factors to not come with a sacrifice. Otherwise, companies will be able to draw most newcomers to their instance and attain a large share of the content on the fediverse, which is bad as discussed with Statement #1.

Going by this principle, if the owner over a closed-source fediverse platform starts trying to create exclusive functionality that would attract people their instance, they should be regarded with extreme caution. If you're familiar with the whole "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" thing, a company doing such would be the "Extend" phase of EEE, and that's a situation we should avoid at all costs.

3/3

1. No actor controls a large portion of visible activity.

This is important for instances to be able to defederate from those with bad moderation, harmful values, etc. If a person or group controls a big portion of the content that people see on an instance, then that instance will lose a lot of that content should they defederate. That person or group would essentially be able to do whatever, and instances would find difficulty defederating because they'd lose so much visible activity and thus users.

If a single entity gets enough dominance over activity, they could make defederation from them out of the question for a ton of users. Furthermore, that entity could cripple the fediverse by simply leaving it, taking a bunch of users from other instances with them. This is a big concern many people have with Threads; if 90% of the activity you see on mastodon.social comes from Threads, then Meta would be able to nab a ton of mastodon.social users by leaving the fediverse, facing those users with the choice of either losing a ton of their connections & follows or jumping ship to Threads.

But you don't even need a supermajority of content to cause that much harm. For example, take the threadiverse (Lemmy/Kbin). A large portion of visible activity is controlled by the admins of lemmy.world. Thankfully, they seem to nice people, but if they were to start (for example) being more lax with hate speech, other Lemmy/Kbin instances would either have to deal with it or lose access to a large portion of the activity pool. If any threadiverse instance were to defederate from lemmy.world — even if the lemmy.world admins started acting against the interests of the fediverse and its users — that instance would lose a dangerous number of users.

1. Users can move between instances without penalty.

One of the main benefits of the fediverse is that you can move to a different instance and still be able to view the same content. If the admins of your instance start making moderation decisions you disagree with or you just decide that you want to be on an instance that you yourself run, you're able to move and still interact with the content pool. Thus, as long as the platform your destination instance uses (e.g., Firefish, Kbin, Mastodon) supports the same type of content as your old one, you should be able to move without any downsides. The more penalty there is for moving, the more people will feel trapped on an instance even if they want to leave.

This is partially a matter of robust systems for moving accounts, but it's also a matter of having good options available. Mastodon has a ton of active, stable instances, so if you ever want to move (e.g., because your instance is or isn't defederating from Threads), you can do so and still be able to use Mastodon. However, the only such instance on Kbin is kbin.social (not counting instances that run Mbin, a fork with different features & development). If you want to move from kbin.social to another Kbin instance, you don't really have a lot of options. And if you're on something that's closed-source, you'll be forced to move to a different platform entirely, which may not be great for the user — an important reason why free and open-source software should be prominent on the fediverse.

Obviously, this is something that might be impossible to achieve. But even if we can't eliminate the strings attached to moving to another instance, we should try to minimize them.

1. People can create and run their own instances to their liking with minimal effort.

If a user wants to, they should be able to control their interactions on the fediverse through running their own instance, and doing so should require as little effort as is feasible. Many people have already set up single-person instances for the purpose of having more control over their data. If people can't do that, then they're forced to put their account and content under the control of other people. Of course, most people are fine with this provided that they trust their instance admins, but the option to be your own admin should be as available as possible.

This is part of why it's so important to have prominent open-source platforms. If Mastodon weren't open-source, then anyone who likes Mastodon but wants to control their content would be out of luck. If you like the Threads interface but don't want to be on an instance run by Meta, you just don't have that option.

2/3

@umbraroze

Why the fuck do people even follow the site any more.

Unfortunately, that's where all the content is. Things like this don't bother a lot of people — for example, discussion about YT videos wasn't something I ever used Reddit for — and as long as Reddit is the only platform providing what they're interested in, they're going to stay.

Don't blame him tbh. F1953 was my favorite out of the 6 finalists, so I'm glad to see that it's going to become an actual state flag.

Now let's hope that they don't mess it up with all of the changes they're making….

Ah, I follow. Even so, I'd love to see Kbin grow as a platform for viewing, interacting with, and posting microblogs. I have gotten a ton of value out of the All Content view, and I think that more robust microblogging will make Kbin a much more attractive platform. Thus, I think it's important to consider the impact (for better or for worse) of big contributors like Flipboard and Threads, even if most of the people on Kbin rn aren't bothering with microblogs.

I'd disagree that they don't matter at all. Even if you don't, there are plenty of people who use the microblog side of Kbin and care about what's in the microblog feed. Obviously, this doesn't concern people who only use threads, but that's not a reason to assert that we shouldn't care.