this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
967 points (91.8% liked)

Technology

59346 readers
7053 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] otter@lemmy.ca 148 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

What I hate to see, even in this thread, is people turning on each other in this "us vs. them", "you're either a part of the pact or you're against us" nonsense

Let's all remember why WE ALL CHOSE to get on the fediverse and build it. The strength of the fediverse comes from the freedom for each instance to choose how to run things. My understanding is that no one in an instance is harmed if some other instance chooses to federate or defederate from Threads.

I hate Meta. I also know that Meta doesn't need to do anything to take down the fediverse if we do it ourselves.

[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 40 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Part of it is just today's polarized political climate, especially since the popularity of the Fediverse is partially a backlash to reactionaries taking over Twitter and the corporate enshittification of Facebook and Reddit.

Everything is a war now, and solidarity and boycotts are basically the only weapons that small, independent actors have. So people apply "don't cross the picket line" thinking to everything, even where it doesn't make sense.

Want to act properly? Contribute money and labour towards your instances. Help them build better moderation tools so they can handle the flood of crap from Threads, and onboarding tools and better UX so they can steal away the Threads users.

[–] moormaan@lemmy.ca 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yes, yes and yes (I contribute money).

[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago

Ditto. I also try to file good, clean bug reports with detailed repro steps where I hit them. Not just "it's busted, fix it". I'd love to contribute actual code, because I'd like to think I'm a really good programmer (been coding professionally for decades), but actually fully getting a hosted Masto instance up to the point where you can edit the code and see it live is a freaking nightmare.

[–] voidMainVoid@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

"The flood of crap" isn't what people should be worried about. They should be worried about Meta embracing, extending, and extinguishing the Fediverse. There's a good article about this here. People are worried about the wrong things and don't realize what's at stake.

[–] Spuddlesv2@lemmy.ca 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The Ploum article again. Please explain how the circumstances with XMPP and ActivityPub are remotely similar.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Well that and the story while not "wrong", is definitely hyperbolic. The author even stated after stating that Google killed XMPP that they didn't. So which is it? I'm not a dev, but an avid open source fan. i first tried Linux in 1995. Started using jabber itself in 1999 through Gaim. Later pidgin and psi clients in 2001-2. There were a ton of problems beyond Google. As far as clients were concerned there was no reference version. And there really were no large professionally run servers like mastodon.social or lemmy.world. People, myself included put too much hope in the Google basket. It was a massive unearned win in user count. That was just as easily lost. And kept people from focusing on the core service. Yes Google was never a good steward. Corporations never are. But the lack of official clients and servers, plus their decision to persue IETF standardization had as big or bigger impact on the services development and adoption.

The moral of the story isn't that Google or anyone else can kill an open source project. Microsoft Google and many more have tried and failed. The moral is that we shouldn't cater to them or give them special treatment. They aren't the key to success.

[–] voidMainVoid@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Both are open protocols for communication over the Internet. Both have been adopted by a large corporate interest.

Now, how are they different?

[–] Spuddlesv2@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I asked how the circumstances are similar, not vague descriptions that suit your existing views. But sure.

XMPP was dogshit back in 2004. A good idea, but nowhere NEAR what it needed to be to actually get mainstream acceptance. ActivityPub is light years ahead.

There were very very few XMPP users in 2004. There are millions of ActivityPub users. If meta was to pull the plug on federation it wouldn’t kill ActivityPub, there would still be millions of us here. We joined Lemmy/Kbin/Mastodon because we don’t want to live in a centrally controlled/owned social platform. That won’t change just because we can suddenly interact with Threads users. In fact, if anything, once Threads users hear that we get the same shit they do without the ads, they might decide to join us instead.

Google killing off XMPP integration didn’t kill XMPP. It did that all on its own.

[–] voidMainVoid@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If meta was to pull the plug on federation it wouldn’t kill ActivityPub, there would still be millions of us here.

It's not about pulling the plug. It's about introducing proprietary features that break communication, forcing people off of an independent server and onto Threads.

If most of your IRL friends are on Threads and your experience with them has gotten janky due to Meta fucking with the protocol, it's going to be very difficult to not switch over to Threads.

Oh, and good luck trying to get your friends to switch over to some indie server they've never heard of. If you can do that, then you should run for president.

[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So basically, the worst thing Meta could do is what the defederators are actively campaigning for: To make it impossible for Threads and the Fediverse to communicate.

[–] Gestrid@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

The difference is the stage at which they "advocate" for it.

People here are advocating for it now before Facebook has a chance to "embrace" us.

Facebook would only "advocate" for it after they've "embraced" us and started to "extend" ActivityPub with proprietary features that potentially caused issues with Lemmy users.

With the former, Lemmy continues on its own, growing naturally. With the latter, Lemmy users lose contact with communities they've become a part of and may be forced to move to Threads to continue interacting with their communities. That harms Lemmy's active userbase. Additionally, because of how big Threads is, it'd naturally have the largest communities, so other Lemmy users would start using them instead of communities on other instances. That means those communities would shrink and may even die off entirely. When Facebook cuts off ActivityPub support, that'll leave us with several small or abandoned communities. So we'd end up with a smaller userbase and fewer active communities.

[–] bilb@lem.monster 8 points 11 months ago

I'm not personally in favor of preemptively blocking threads on my instance and I don't find the EEE argument at all convincing in this case. But other instances doing that is no problem at all, it's fine!

[–] sour@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago

a house divided…

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Embrace, extend, destroy is a thing though.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It is

I'm not sure if defederating is the correct counter to it

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Defederating from known-bad-actor corporations during the “embrace” phase seems like a perfectly wise choice to me. Keeps them from getting to stage 2.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

It's not about us embracing them, it's about them embracing the protocol, which they can do whether we stay federated or not.

The argument against defederation is that it tells newcomers that the defederated instance is an island and they're better off joining the place where they can talk to their friends. Meta can more easily extend if we're not around to explain why extending is a bad thing, and if we're not around to advocate for people to ditch Meta's platform and join an open one

Here is what it actually means

Embrace: Development of software substantially compatible with a competing product, or implementing a public standard.

Extend: Addition and promotion of features not supported by the competing product or part of the standard, creating interoperability problems for customers who try to use the "simple" standard.

Extinguish: When extensions become a de facto standard because of their dominant market share, they marginalize competitors that do not or cannot support the new extensions.
[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

I think it’s naive to imagine that anything we say or do will influence Meta’s behavior or strategy in any way. But I do see your point that when an instance defederates from Threads, it makes an island of itself, not of Threads.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 1 points 11 months ago

My understanding is that no one in an instance is harmed if some other instance chooses to federate or defederate from Threads.

It does kinda hurt the Fediverse as a whole when it becomes so segregated.