this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2023
869 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37742 readers
492 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
An interesting and nuanced response - thank you. I'm not quite sure I agree, as it rather assumed good faith - but food for thought.
There seems very little incentive for Meta to federate with anyone, except good faith, right?
They'll double the Fediverse Userbase in an hour, or less.
The 'embrace, extend, extinguish' strategy is a well known one. Set out with a strategy to become the biggest instance, capture lots and lots of new users. Introduce some swanky new features that 'unfortunately initially don't federate very well, but we are working in that'. Then defederate from other instances that don't adopt your features - etc etc
Facebook has done federation before - for example, back when they weren't winning at chat, they integrated their chat system with other Jabber / XMPP servers so that people felt chat wasn't a walled garden and could talk with people using other clients.
How did it end? 7 years later, once enough people were on Facebook Chat, they closed the gates to the walled garden by completely ending XMPP support: https://developers.slashdot.org/story/15/07/16/131254/facebook-finally-ends-xmpp-support-for-3rd-party-chat.
So it is really just about leveraging the fediverse to get users onto their product (and their current products, while they are similar in that they are about social networking, aren't really like exactly like Lemmy or Mastodon). If they are successful enough, what is to stop them locking the gate to the walled garden again?
But they won't be capturing new users from the Fediverse, they will capture them from Facebook and Instagram, and since this is mainly a Twitter competitor, also from Twitter.
I think you're missing the point. We are weary of Facebook's decision to enter the Fediverse exactly because we know it sees the Fediverse as a long-term threat and it could try to extinguish it. While they at first would adopt open standards and protocols, what stops them from creating proprietary extensions and using those and its dominance and resources to make it difficult for users to switch to other platforms in the Fediverse?
Nothing, which should probably raise concerns around how good a standard ActivityPub actually is if all it takes to drive a truck through its intent is one bad actor.
Is it really fair to call Facebook just one bad actor? It's one of the largest corporations in the world, has some of the largest social media and messaging platforms out there. In terms of resources, there are very few companies, let alone individuals or groups, that can compete with Facebook.
If you look at it in these terms, you understand that Facebook has an interest in making sure that ActivityPub doesn't too large without Facebook having a say in it. If it could control the whole internet, I'm sure it would. So, no, I don't agree with your framing of the issue.
I mean, it is just one bad actor.
I don't think that ActivityPub is having any present difficulty keeping itself niche without Facebook's help - fedi has a total active user base of something like 2million, it's very literally a rounding error on Meta's user numbers. If there's a battle here, Facebook is already winning.
Here's an article that goes into detail about why Facebook joining the Fediverse means the end of the Fediverse: https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html.
I'd guess the plan is that if the fediverse and meta mingles together, the fedi-users start to follow the meta users in such amount that when the breakup finally happens, they are reliant on meta to continue. People stay on facebook, eating the ads and manipulation just because their mothers and friends are there.
Just thought about the future nightmare of receiving an invite on mastodon to a friends private meta-instance "party" and to view it you are suddenly offered to either decline or import your fedi-account.
The history of Facebook (there I said it) and the EEE example MS already provided us years ago (as referenced by @HeartyBeast ) does not incline me to believe in their good faith. If Meta has proven one thing over and over and over, it's that their interests will always lie in harvesting of user data to enrich themselves, and that any restraint on their part will be that which is legislatively forced.
Let the Fediverse grow on its own. It's not a race. And it's surely not a race best won by letting the wolf in through the front door.
The day we federate with Meta is the day I find the fediverse instances that refuse to do so, and take my account there.
Edit: Blog post on this topic that goes into some detail about historical precedent and etc.
Even if they are acting in good faith, I think they’ve earned our derision and deserve to be shut out. You don’t get to play unfairly for decades then turn around and expect no consequences.
No incentive other than good faith? This is one of the most profitable corporations that has ever existed, talking to one of its competitors. If you think this is how corporations operate, I've got news for you. This is like Capitalism 101.
Yeah, because the ~2 Million monthly active users on the whole fediverse actually matters to the company with 2.95 billion active users on Facebook and 1.2 billion monthly active users on Instagram.
those 2 Million Fediverse users are .06% or .167% compared.
yeah, those rounding errors are totally the reason why Meta is going for ActivityPub
Nobody's saying that, in terms of user bases, the Fediverse is comparable to Facebook or Instagram. And it seems to me that you are misrepresenting why people here, myself included, don't want our instances to federated with Facebook. It's not that we don't want bigger communities. Most of us have been on Facebook or Reddit and have given up on those bigger communities and adopted the Fediverse because it aligns with our values and privacy principles. Facebook does not. Its Fediverse platform will not suddenly be the opposite of what the company has been doing for more than a decade.
Well, maybe I got the wrong impression, but I felt like the userbase of the fediverse was implied as the motivation for Meta federating.
And I wanted to put in a comparison, why I don't think that this is the case.
I don't see a reason why Meta should want Threads to federate, except for "well, whatever, doesn't hurt us to get those fractions of a percent". They'll probably have to use whitelists anyway, due to different legal situations on different instances. So at best they'll federate with some of the bigger instances.
I'm sorry to tell you, but your privacy isn't exactly great here.
Every Thread, Comment and Upvote at least can be requested from any fediverse instance.
And do you know what, you don't even have to be a fediverse instance yourself to do that.
But I guess you knew that, so you're here because nobody tracks what you look at, which is great, and because you like Open Source.
That's not going to Change when Meta Federates.
That's true.
But it will be two things, if I may steal the analogy of someone else in this thread:
first it will be a black hole ripping through the Fediverse.
I'd like that to do as little damage as possible.
I'd love it if mastodon continues to grow after Metas release, and doesn't collapse under server costs, Spam and other detrimental effects.
For that, preparing for the coming storm seems useful.
second it will be a huge amount of possible connections, of people.
I'd love to be able to toot a reply to some meta thread.
I mean, wouldn't it be nice if the fediverse would already know certain rules that meta may require to federate with them? And I mean sensible rules, like no/flagged porn, issues with piracy etc.
One could also talk about how Meta allows/blocks instances. A lot of legal trouble for Meta could probably be avoided if they only show posts from a whitelist of instances, but any user could post to their instance.
But how would they deal with non-whitelisted instances trying to pull Threads-Content?
Maybe they want to talk about how to deal with those "half-federating" situations, because this is not the current norm, and they may not actually get more bad press when a meeting could have prevented it.
For both of these effects I think communication with meta can only help.
It seems we have different priorities and concerns, and I can respect that.
I'm skeptical of Facebook, as I see the potential of it attempting to take over the Fediverse. As I've said in a different comment recently, Facebook's business model goes against the Fediverse's business model. And, in the long term, the Fediverse model has the potential to compete with larger for-profit corporations. And, as it has done in the past with the acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp, Facebook is now once again trying to prevent its demise by joining the Fediverse. Again, I'm not saying that the Fediverse is an existential threat to Facebook now, but it could be in the future. As people increasingly become weary of big corporations stealing their data, Facebook has to pretend that it's changing. That it has learned from its past mistakes. And I just don't buy it.
We're here because these large corporations have failed us.
Yes, I wasn't implying that Google or Facebook cannot see what we're talking, when I mentioned the privacy concerns. I was referring to this data not being used to profile us for targeted ads.
Not if most instances choose not to federate with Facebook. People who want to be on a federated instance can sign up to that instance. The option to not federate is a build-in feature of the Fediverse, and I hope kbin.social takes advantage of that. If not, I'll see myself out and look for an instance that does.
Here's an article that helped me understand this issue better: https://ianbetteridge.com/2023/06/21/meta-and-mastodon-whats-really-on-peoples-minds/.
Fascinating comment from someone who doesn't understand rates of growth at all, and has no idea why this "offer" is coming at this point in time.
It'd be entirely open to Meta to simply turn off federation, in the same way that Truth Social and Counter Social have.
But honestly if I were them, given the hostile reaction I'd probably just do that and knock the whole ActivityPub thing on the head. It feels like a waste of time when realistically they would get more people on Threads/P92 in one day than a million Musk-buying-Twitters could do with Mastodon. Then everyone is happy - no Meta on fedi, Meta gets its new exciting Twitter clone that it fully controls.
Put it this way - either they're up to some form of non-specific evil, in which case they can probably achieve whatever goals they have far more concretely if they fully control the content on Threads, or they're not and all this is actually in good faith, in which case they're doing this for the benefit of a few hundred thousand fedi nerds who have reacted mostly with hostility and are going to block it on sight.