Meta just announced that they are trying to integrate Threads with ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, etc.). We need to defederate them if we want to avoid them pushing their crap into fediverse.
If you’re a server admin, please defederate Meta’s domain “threads.net”
If you don’t run your own server, please ask your server admin to defederate “threads.net”.
I want a server where users can make these decisions for themselves.
Fuck this mob-mentality spurred upon by losers.
Nah. More content and a lower percentage of extremists is a good thing.
In fact, I agree with your second sentence.
The issue here is twofold:
-
if threads federates, people will have 10x the content they have now and a lot more „mainstream content“ than rn. If threads starts to push ads with their posts in a year or two, the way back is like losing an arm because everyone got used to the pumped up amount of content. A lot of popular people have a threads account.
-
the more problematic issue is the possibility of an EEE attempt (embrace, expand, extinguish) which google has done with xmpp years ago. If threads federates and meta starts changing parts of the activitypub protocoll, they might rip apart the fediverse
Dont get me wrong! I‘m not against a possible federation but we need ground rules first. No pushing ads, no changing of the protocol, no commercial usage of federated data, etc.
Do you have the money to enforce those rules? Because meta certainly has the money to get people to profit off what they want.
You will lose. EEE/enshittification will happen. To think otherwise is naive.
Well, I already defederated so I‘ll just scream into to void and hope some peeps hear me.
Because gay rights (as example) also were „never gonna happen“ at some point. We just need to keep on pushing.
What a stupid line of argumentation. You will obviously always lose if you don’t push back
Stupid?
Cynical, sure…Pragmatic even, but not stupid. I don’t have rose tinted glasses that so many fediverse adherents seem to have about this platform. I see the corporate world taking what it wants. They may not snatch it up quickly, but they sure as hell can engage in the EEE slow grind and get what they want eventually.
Sure, fight. We might be able to carve out a piece that remains free. But if they want to commercialize it, they will, and there will be plenty of instance owners that will jump on the bandwagon to make $ or just defray costs.
On your second point, it’s worth calling out that a lot of folks on Lemmy today came from the Reddit API changes. These folks left a very, very active site to a network with substantially fewer users and less content, and still pales in comparison.
I think this serves as sufficient evidence to show there’s a large enough group of people who don’t care for the size/activity of a social network and participate on the principle of less-VC/Wall St funded social media.
I don’t think EEE applies here. Worst case a bunch of servers defederate Threads. If the ActivityPub protocol gets terrible influence from Meta, the protocol spec can be forked.
If, on the unlikely chance, the Lemmy devs start becoming Meta advocates and add ads in Lemmy, the software is AGPL3, it can be forked.
Look at how Linux works around corporate abuse, especially with the Red Hat nonsense. As long as enough people care, a fork is made and maintained, and users will come.
Technically correct but imo not addressing my point:
Even if something gets forked, every time the divide gets deeper and less „social“. The reason why an EEE attempt makes sense is to weaken a competing service with potential. Its enough to weaken it for the devs to eventually lose patience and stuff breaks down.
Because if a million users sees the light and leaves, they have a million instead of the 10 they had before. That is a massive step backwards which took years and years to accomplish.
-
What do you mean by “extremists”? Not all issues, maybe even close to none, can actually have a reasonable moderate position. An example: If there are people who are in favour of abortion and people who want to outlaw abortion, a moderate position must necessarily not support full abortion rights and therefore is immoral. I think that we actually need more (good) extremism, because in many cases, a compromise is simply unacceptable.
With you on abortion, but I think usually the truth is somewhere in the middle and the most extreme views on the left and right are wrong. I don’t like encountering extremism on lemmy. It makes the world seem more hostile than it is.
How you think threads is helping in that ?
Bro, have you actually seen most of the instances? There are regular posts encouraging small shit like theft and vandalism to full on memes about blowing up buildings. The commie instances are full on support the shit. “Government inherently uses violence to enforce it’s laws why can’t I” full on tankie bullshit. Lemmy is FILLED with extremists.
Having a representative population absolutely will tone it down.
Tbh, I never saw that. I’d rather argue with commie tankies all day, and look through their posts then see meta and big tech ripping apart fediverse.
I just subscribe to things I’m intersted in so that’s way I don’t see extermist content or any other content I don’t wanna se. And no this doesn’t mean “i can just block threads myself for myself” because it is just individual action that on big scale has no effect at all.
Say “I haven’t been on a Meta (or similarly dogshit) platform in over a decade” without using those words.
👌👍
deleted by creator
Why? This sounds like FUD.
is fud buzzword now
It is.
We shouldn’t let these losers bring us down with them.
we
The preemptive strike is interesting. The cost will be a lack of knowledge. We know our enemy but we don’t know them on this terrain yet.
Okay. I’ve seen stuff like this on both mastodon, and here, but i haven’t heard about them doing anything that would actually harm the fediverse. I guess i don’t know what the problem is. I know they’ve got a negative reputation, and for good reason, but isn’t that the awesome part of threads being federated? We can follow and connect to people there without being part of their system, and therefor not susceptible to their bs? If I’m missing something please fill me in.
People are concerned because there were examples of such things going horribly wrong, most notably with Google and XMPP.
Way back in the day, Google announced that its Talk messenger will support XMPP, which made decentralization fans very happy - finally, they can communicate with everyone from the comfort of their decentralized instance!..oh.
Google started implementing features in Talk that are incompatible with XMPP, and then dropped XMPP support altogether, ending up deprecating Talk in favor of Google-only Hangouts. This forced many XMPP users to get into Google’s ecosystem, since the people they contacted through XMPP were mostly just using Google Talk, and they couldn’t be contacted through XMPP any more. As a result, XMPP became worse off than it started and got practically forgotten by all but 1,5 nerds who keep it alive.
now most of their contacts were in defederated Google to which they now didn’t have access.
This forced many XMPP users to get into Google’s ecosystem
No it didn’t
As a result, XMPP became worse off than it started
Wrong again.
This. I don’t care what Google or Meta do, I will never use their services.
this ☝️. Those of us who remember what happened then, understand the potential dangers of federating with a juggernaut like META.
We should tread lightly!
As a result, XMPP became worse off than it started and got practically forgotten by all but 1,5 nerds who keep it alive.
Is it even true? I doubt XMPP was ever popular outside of google’s talk.
No it’s not in the least bit, but because people keep reposting that angry blog post by someone who was personally involved and wanted someone to blame so they blamed Google (as if XMPP needed any outside help to fail to catch on, they could do it on their own perfectly fine), people believe that narrative and then get sold on Meta wanting to the same with the Fediverse. As if they could give a flying fart (just like with Google and XMPP).
If they don’t care about Fediverse they wouldn’t join it in the first place. It isn’t just meaningless but actually harmful - people can gain access to the content on their service without being subject to their extensive surveillance and ads. Add to this all the regular problems with federation.
As for Google and XMPP, back in the days it was happening Google were playing good guys - they had infamous “don’t be evil” motto, supported various open standards and open-source projects (they still do so to some extend of course). I think for them it wasn’t really an intent to ‘kill’ XMPP, it just XMPP was too dependant on google so they suffered a lot when the company decided to stop federation.
Xmpp’s popularity isn’t the point.
The point is google intentionally killed it
How do you define if a communication protocol is dead? I use XMPP everyday, it works just well.
Also, I doubt that Google wanted to destroy XMPP. They simply needed a chat then noticed it’s crap for mobile devices. They wanted to offer their users seemless migration to the new proprietary protocol.
I was sad that Google stopped to use an official standard, but there are many better free options left.
XMPP works great on mobile devices today. Google could have easily developed and published such extensions themselves.
Not even a little bit. XMPP was rubbish.
Why? It works great for me and my contacts. I use it for all my personal messaging.
When Google started using XMPP in Talk, 20 years ago, it was crap. I haven’t used it in probably 15 years but it wasn’t great then either.
Then it must have gotten a lot better in the meantime then. I discovered it ~2020 while searching for alternatives to WhatsApp and realizing that other walled gardens cannot be the answer since they have the same problem as WhatsApp. I think we should revive the idea of an universal internet standard for instant messaging.
Give https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html a read. Might sway you, might not.
This is an excellent point. Thanks!
in that case considering meta is saying that it would take nearly a year to federate the platform we probably should defederate them.
What point in that linked blog swayed you? The circumstances are quite different. XMPP was dogshit when Google started working with it. ActivityPub is light years ahead.
I really don’t know enough to say one way or the other, but the fact that this is an established Microsoft practice swayed me. I can actually believe google didn’t intend to do what it did to xmpp as a log of google employees from the 2000’s speak highly of the company, but these executives are traded like nfl players, and i know enough about meta’s history to believe they may do this. Besides I’m still new to development, but i don’t see many other reasons why it would take meta nearly a year to fully launch federation.
Actually this just occurred to me, but isn’t it interesting which accounts were linked first?
Triple-E predates Microsoft. IBM was doing it before Bill Gates was a twinkle in the mailman’s eye.
Just think:
Meta has literal billions of users.
The entire fediverse has about 1.5 million.
Less than a fraction of a percent.
Why in THE FUCK would meta notice, or care, at fucking all? The entire fediverse of traffic ported over to meta wouldn’t budge their advertising bottom line.
But, it’s a comparatively small group of smart people, having conversations, and profiles they don’t have tabs and near total control over.
There’s news about cop city and gaza I have seen here that I’ve seen NOWHERE else.
Don’t let them control the narrative here
There is one big reason why they would care - antitrust and EU regulation protection. They have no intention to destroy the platform Rather they want to please the regulators as they are leveraging the open standards. The EEE strategy is a conspiracy theory. Government regulations are the most probable reason for this change.
Dude, even if it isn’t straight out EEE they’ll just drown us, and eventually kill us because if whatever reason. It doesn’t even have anything to do with Lemmy, they have to manuver carefully if they want to let us live.
Do you have a Lemmy server that can take the load off of a billion user network? I have one and it for sure can’t.
Your server has users that all follow every single user on the entire fediverse? I will admit, that’d be a real concern in that case, but it also sounds a bit weird. What kind of users do you invite to your instance? O.o
If 99% of the network is meta (probably more) then every user will follow stuff on meta instances, instances like Reddit, will have an enormous load of content. You don’t need “everyone following everything” to get that, just imagine a “Reddit all” instance it will bring any small network to its knees.
It’s all in the numbers, and the usage IMO. I don’t want 10000 soul less posts a day, I want to see what people are up to, working on etc. those concepts are quite incompatible, at least on Lemmy because we are just small servers, not a uniformed giga billion network.
If your users are subscribing to 10,000 accounts who spam so badly that it causes resource issues, that’s not a Threads issue, that’s an issue of who you allow to use your instance.
That’s not how it works.
Threads doesnt have that much users I think. Fb, insta and whatsapp do have a lot of users but I dont expect a lot of users comming from there
The fediverse is an emerging threat. It’s not ready yet, but it’s on the right trajectory. Every time there’s angst on some other platform, the fediverse get’s a bump. Fediverse is not a real competitor yet, perhaps it never will be, but for meta it’s sensible to establish a presence here in the short term, because it may be much more difficult later.
But that’s good. Meta doesn’t care about Lemmy or Mastodon because they’re tiny. Threads is a threat to Twitter. They want to integrate with Mastodon just because Twitter doesn’t. That’s it.
They’re not going for “total control” of your conversation about Gaza. You are not important to them. You are not the main character in some David and Goliath story. There are only Goliaths.
They don’t want to federate because Twitter does not.
But neither to “extinguish” Mastodon or so. They need it as a defense like Google uses Mozilla, showcasing that not only do they enjoy competition, they in fact actively support it, by making their content available over there, too.
Because like you say, the entirely metaverse is so tiny compared to meta, thy could not give a flying fuck whatever the reason if it’s about anything competitive. But they can utilize the tiny underdog as a shield from criticism. And that’s valuable to them.
Do you know why Facebook paid a billion dollars for Instagram? Instagram wasn’t worth that much. It wasn’t generating a billion dollars in revenue. It probably still doesn’t.
Facebook bought Instagram because Instagram was a growing app that was popular with a demographic Facebook wanted to control. They spent a billion dollars to eliminate a growing threat.
Mastodon and, to a lesser extent, Lemmy, represent a growing threat. Not a very big one right now, but it could become a bigger one. It could become another billion dollar problem for the goliaths on the Internet, in a few years. They need to have total control, if a social media app starts to fragment it just collapses instead as users decide to go wherever the other users are.
Facebook’s 1000:1 user ratio would make Lemmy irrelevant and stave off that billion dollar problem for Facebook down the road. An incredibly cheap way to kill a tiny but growing competitor.
Well, then, let’s make our point I’ll just email the holders of the instances I’m on and let them know I support defederating threads
Why in THE FUCK would meta notice, or care, at fucking all?
Why do people ask rhetorical questions without following through?!
This is a question that should be asked. If, indeed, the fediverse is so unimportant WHY THE FLYING FUCK IS META INTERESTED IN FEDERATING WITH IT!?!? THAT is the question people should be asking, given that Meta does nothing that isn’t designed to add more money to Zuck the Fuck’s portfolio.
And yet … most people (for clarity, I don’t mean you here!) don’t ask that question. They don’t take that question you ask and wonder beyond that first kneejerk level. Use that question instead as a “LOL Meta doesn’t care about the fediverse” piece of evidence.
And this is why we can’t have nice things.
Meta will be okay making money off lemmy indirectly for a while. Then, if they grow, they’ll want more than a toehold.
When it’s Facebook, trust that greed and power are the goals.
It’ll be successful and the current devs will lose the ability to unilaterally control the project.
So competition, that’s what they are afraid of.
@Creatortray
You’ve just written it : their negative reputation for easaly understandable reasons. We can already foresee Threads will very soon be used to spread the most toxic campaigns on the net and that will undoubtably harm the Fediverse. One of the most valuable trait of the Fediverse is its decentralization and consequently, the potential accountability of any server administrator. Why should we take those risks when it’s so easy to avoid it? #BlockThreadsOut
@mypasswordis1234@Nelfan @Creatortray @mypasswordis1234 if my server federates with #Threads and it creates a problem, I’ll stop supporting it and move to one that doesn’t.
@boiglenoight @Nelfan @Creatortray @mypasswordis1234
Great toot, Nelfaneor, but to use the word ‘risk’ with respect to the probability of #falseBook creating harm in the #fediverse network, is a mistake — it is a “certainty”.Boiglenoight if you value the free and open web we have news for you, your instance is having its HTTPS intercepted by Cloud(G)lare (change ‘G’ to ‘F’). Move to a different one, if you want us to continue dialog with you.
It is inevitable that Meta will try to kill the fediverse while chasing profits, there is no other possibility in their endgame.
If that is pushing ads into other instances or killing those instances entirely we don’t know yet but it will happen.
It has to because the shareholders must always have more.
I just don’t think it’s possible for something to kill the fediverse. And if it is possible, then it is a flaw in the design of the fediverse and needs to be fixed.
Exactly. It’s basically pen testing.
All activity pub needed to do was create a user rights guidelines that prevents profiting off the data. Meta wouldn’t have touched the Fediverse with the 10-foot pole, if that were the case.
Lololol and what legal mechanism are you going to use to enforce that?
ActivityPub is a protocol, not a fucking organization. It literally has no agency.
You can licence a protocol
ActivityPub can’t license anything. When you identify actual human beings in this conversation, perhaps you might have a point. So far you don’t.
First off, calm the hell down. You’re being needlessly antagonistic.
Secondly, it seems like the W3C is the publisher of the activity pub standard seems like they ducats what is an isnt compliant.
Seems like of was specifically authored by a team including Evan Prodromou according to the wiki.
If they wanted too, but like literally and open source software, it could have been given licencing requirements
Specifically, my research has turned up that implementations of these protocols can be licensed. Threads’ version of ActivityPub likely has its own licence. I think it would be safe to say that the creators of Lemmy and Mastodon specifically could have privacy rights dictated within their license implementation. That would nullify threads legal capabilities.
People have been writing about this ad nauseum. It’s the embrace, extend, extinguish strategy. Join fediverse, extend the spec with so that not all clients are compatible with all features, repeat as necessary until everyone is using your client, finally drop compatibility with other clients.
Are you planning to pay for the extra bandwith to deal with all the additional traffic?
Meta will.
And then when they own the servers amd all the traffic, lemmy will be quietly murdered.
Quietly, because they’ll control the traffic, and therefore the narrative
And then when they own the servers amd all the traffic
That’s just…not how any of this works.
Today no.
Come make your instance on Meta™ it’s free™!! Its fast! It’s yours!!
Then later they’ll wreck havoc on our small servers making them slow and unreliable, making their servers even more interesting for people. And so on.
And that’s just one way among lots of ways.
I love that your fear is they will be successful and the lemmy devs and admins don’t have their shit together or a plan to handle anything but a small niche headcount.
deleted by creator
My sweet summer child.
With a network that big, they have to be very careful, and really try, if they don’t want our servers to just go kaboom.
Or we just defederate from any of those attempts.
People are overreacting.
No we’re not. Read up on what happened to xmpp. Google joined it, made the service much slower for people not on their servers, everybody joined their servers, they shut their service down for their own proprietary stuff.
Edit: https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
made the service much slower for people not on their server
I call bullshit. People not using Google servers were unaffected. The problem is people using walled gardens instead of making XMPP compatibility a requirement.
Embrace
Extend
ExtinguishThat doesn’t make sense. If Google was making xmpp worse then the servers could just defederate. At this moment threads has not done anything to warrant defederation.
I really don’t think that’s the case.
This is a nice little place, meta barging in Will fuck it all up
They aren’t barging in. You need to follow the threads user. Only on mastodon are they “barging in”.
Just because you have no experience, you think it’s overreacting.
Compared to you who has so much experience with threads joining the fediverse.
By all means, fuck Meta to the moon and back, but for goodness’ sake, users on federated servers can choose to block the domain with the same result, not to mention that admins can simply restrict it (see social.coop/@eloquence/1115888…). It just isn’t so black and white as people are making it seem.
Federation with a bigger platform is realistically the only way for Fedi to become mainstream, and at the moment Meta seems at least to be trying to be communicative. And with their quite unvaluable userbase they really don’t have enough leverage against the privacy-concious Fediverse to turn AP into MetaPub. For now.
So then we shall propose to let them in at our own terms ?
That’s quite reasonable to me, and less radical in my humble opinion.
But I also see how one may arrive at such a conclusion, as all parties may not be as welling to accept such terms and conditions, or even be able to make such terms and conditions enforceable.
One instance may accept favours from meta, and then it spreads out uncontrollably… And then … Its gets more complex.
Perhaps the safest option is to limit their present shares to a maximum of 40% in our servers. That is, they cannot be allowed to have more than a set amount of API exposure to the feeds - and they must allow us to reciprocate, like wise, by being able to have access to theirs by more than 40%. The value of assets can surely be established and estimated par costs of maintenance and OA, etc…
You’re playing the classic “it’s the individual responsability” game. It’s how you deregulate everything and the consumer losses every right.
We have to acknowledge that we have systemic or/and societal issues. This is a systemic issues so a common thing.
I’m just saying that even on federated instances the users can choose to block Threads, and that that gives the same result for them. There’s no need to force the hand of the user; there are more than enough corpo-critical people on Fedi for it not to be taken over by Meta.
Edit: And I understand that allowing interaction with Meta is very risky business. Which is why I like the approach of instances like social.coop which restrict interaction from Threads but still give the user a choice.
It’s a similar situation as with the unions. We can all manage to have a pay rise by ourselves. Or, we unionize and ask together for the pay rise.
Defederating the instance is like unionizing. We all go forward instead of individually to have weight. This weight is in form of killing asap the federating attempt, as threads.net users will have nothing to see in the Fediverse. If you let each user manage the situation, threads.net can do whatever they want. There is no individual responsibility in this case. We have to play collectively.
We need to play collectively because the Fediverse isn’t one monolithic network, unlike Meta. It’s a federated network. It’s each instance and Meta. This is why unionizing is important. It’s the Fediverse and Meta. This is the magic of activity pub. You can let others use the protocol but say no to the interaction with them.
The second aspect is that Meta is relying on “cognitive capitalism”. Meta will use free cognitive time from the Fediverse to capitalize. This has huge implication on mental health and all kind of minorities relying on the Fediverse for various reasons. We can say all together no to this, what isn’t possible individually. I recommend the book “The Soul at Work From Alienation to Autonomy” by Franco “Bifo” Berardi. It’s a good book to understand the issue with Meta and others.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Not quite the same result. Blocking the instance stops you seeing their posts, but not the comments coming from their users.
No, that’s just Lemmy. On Masto it blocks all interactions from users (including prohibiting them from following you and therefore fetching your posts).
We are on lemmy. So they are right in this context. I really couldn’t give a crap about anything like Twitter because I hate everything about that type of medium.
The thing is, you don’t really see anything from the Microblogging Fediverse around here at all, do you, so why would you from Threads? And Meta will only explicitly collect your data if you follow one of their accounts, which is impossible from Lemmy. So in a Lemmy context it is quite irrelevant.
Also,
We are on lemmy.
I’m not ;)
Fair. But I’m on lemmy for discussion. I don’t want threads’ bobbleheaded userbase fucking up every discussion thread on lemmy. So I will stay on instances that have de-federated that shithole and urge other instances to do the same.
But they won’t. Seeing how little even the relatively federation-conscious Mastodonians interact with Lemmy, from Threads it will be close to zero (especially since the devs are very “careful” with federation and probably won’t display article-formatted posts anytime soon).
I’m not comfortable with assuming the dregs of Facebook will leave Lemmy alone. I’ll stick to instances that have defederated and I’ll actively block instances that don’t.
I’m not out here trying to stop you from being on federated instances or anyone else. But I will not personally support instances that allow that monster into the ecosystem.
I didn’t actually know that. Thanks for mentioning it
My pleasure. TMYK!
But I don’t want the fediverse to become mainstream!!
I know, I know, most people think it’s the best thing.
But I selfishly prefer the fediverse to be as it is now. Actually, as it was a couple of months ago. Lemmy is already being filled with rage-baiting bullshit, which is one of the reasons I decided to leave reddit.
Adding more people would dilute some of the excessively frequent ragebait posters…
It’s like the same 2-3 dozen people.
Have you been on Facebook (or Xhitter) recently? Where “recent” is defined as “within the past decade or so”.
Yes, but the point you’re trying to make doesn’t make sense. The content subscription model for both of these are completely different.
On Twitter (erm, I bounced shortly after the X shenanigans…) you subscribed to people and mostly saw tweets of people you follow, and the tweets they re-tweet, so it’s heavily individual-curated.
On Facebook you “subscribe” to people and groups. Because your feed is mixed between people and group posts, you’re still getting a mostly-curated feed from friends, with algorithmic posts from groups. In the last few years they started blending in posts from groups/pages you aren’t in if your feed doesn’t have much content.
Lemmy is entirely different. You only subscribe to communities. The curation is moderation style and upvotes. Individual people can guarantee their way into everyone’s feed by posting to the most active communities.
You completely missed the point.
There’s a HUGE number of ragebait posters on Meta/Xhitter because that’s what causes “engagement” and thus that’s what the Meta algorithms will foster. Bringing in Meta won’t dilute the ragebait. It will amplify it.
I haven’t missed the point, I simply disagree with your assertion. The advocacy to preemptively defederate from Threads is grounded in unsubstantiated FUD.
19 years of unsubstantiation.
How much does Meta pay you to shill, I wonder?
Good to know. I’ll start blocking, then.
I am 100% with you. Becoming mainstream is what ruins most good communities that end up ruined. Hell, even Facebook was a 1000x better before they opened it to non-college users.
It really depends on the instance. There are many cozy, non-mainstream corners on the Fediverse. For instance, beehaw.org is as pleasant as can be.
deleted by creator
It really is rather selfish
Uh, yeah. I already mentioned that.
deleted by creator
We disagree, and that’s okay.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I don’t like Meta, but that’s far from the worst corporate rights record. I say wait and see how it turns out first.
deleted by creator
If anybody remembers XMPP being widespread and what Facebook, Google, Apple and others (say, I personally remember VK and Yandex in Russia supporting it) did to it, that’s what will happen if you “wait and see”.
EDIT: oh, half the thread is such comments
XMPP is still alive and well, is it not?
You don’t get how big it was in 2007. I used ICQ and felt some sort of peer pressure (and progress pressure) to switch to XMPP. You could chat in FB via XMPP, in VK via XMPP, a lot of services would just give you an XMPP account because why not. It was like RSS.
Will the Mastodon and Lemmy instances we have today cease to exist because of Threads federating?
I’m just genuinely curious how we could be worse off than before.
From a previous comment of mine:
To be clear, I want it to be users deciding on Lemmy too. Also, people already here moving to threads wouldn’t be the problem, we’re small in comparison to them. It would be a few things:
- They would bring in a huge party of users that would take it over and overwhelm the current users. It would be like a cruise ship of tourists taking over a small town and breaking everything for the current residents.
- They could post to Lemmy, but we can’t really post to Mastodon. They’re going to send ads our way disguised as content, guaranteed.
- If they can manipulate the users from Mastodon, it’s going to get out of hand fast. They have teams of devs and psych engineering to accomplish that.
- This is volunteer ran, do we have enough energy to fight Meta when they try to enforce something?
- Can they manipulate Activity Pub software because we’re a small team of devs? If they can, they will.
- One person mentioned them having instance owners sign NDAs. What’s up with that?
It doesn’t benefit them to send adds disguised because they are paid to provide ad impressions which they wouldn’t have data for. It’s just an annoying business model not a conspiracy to brainwash you.
Nah, companies did it on reddit all the time, it’s a thing.
That’s why you need Nord VPN so you can play raid shadow legends safely…
The thing is they have so much less control if they do that, I’m fed up of places with adverts where comments are turned off or heavily moderate - if their post comes here they can’t do any of that, I say we let them come, we let them come and then we smash them
They may be overwhelmed by visitors from Threads and then Meta pulls out and they’ll all leave.
People who would register on normal instances or threads would only use Threads because of being lazy and then be lazy after Meta pulls out.
If they become overwhelming, admins can defed same as anywhere else. But whats the argument for doing so preemptively?
You say this as if people haven’t been eloquently arguing for defederating from Threads preemptively since motherfucking APRIL.
No haha I know I just have yet to hear why it would help
I’m fairly new to the fediverse, but I see it this way. If Threads integrates with the Fediverse then users will become accustomed to the content from Threads, which could cause more friction in the future if there’s a movement to defederate from Threads. I think it would just be easier to avoid all that in the first place. I also feel like if anyone really wants to see Threads content they could make an account there, and then everyone gets what they want. Then there’s all the downsides others are theorizing could happen, but they can’t be comfirmed until Threads actually joins the Fediverse.
People who would register on normal instances or threads would only use Threads because of being lazy and then be lazy after Meta pulls out.
Isn’t this already the case? I find it unlikely for someone to find Lemmy without having developed a dislike for platforms owned by big corpos.
… And then they can use it through Threads, and over time forget something and move to Threads, and then oops. Such things happen. Humans are not principle-driven nor should they be.
I think you misunderstood me. I’m saying that whenever someone finds out about Lemmy, it’s because they’ve already sworn off Facebook, Reddit and other big platforms.
Do you think such a person will go back to a Facebook-owned platform just because it happens to federate?
Spoken like a fossil.
This comm profile is only used by those badly skirting modern surveillance. It might have a future as an official black channel, but nothing truly covert.
I remember what the standardising committee did to XMPP: users wanted to share photos, send files, and make audio/video calls; XMPP said “we’re not going to standardize that, but each application can use its own extensions”… then it all went to hell.
I agree, but one can ascribe that to corporate influence (or wish to win corporate love) too. Such a decision on first glance makes sense for using XMPP as a constructor for various system integration tasks, or for making proprietary services using it inside (not retroactively, but well).
XMPP was dead on arrival.
lemmy.world and by extension mastodon.world is probably still waiting to see what happens. The other instance I have my account on has a rather hands-off approach to moderation soooo I hope there’s some way for a user to block an instance on their own.
NextThis version of LemmyIt actually just released yesterday!
Hah! Sweet, thanks for the heads up!
How does one block an instance as a user in Lemmy? I’m not seeing it, but if it only dropped today maybe the version hasn’t spread far and wide yet.
deleted by creator
This function only blocks communities from an instance. You will still see posts and comments from these people on other communities. (And Threads users have no way to create a community on Lemmy.)
I’m all for defederating, but only until we know what their intentions are. I’m more worried about Mastodon than Lemmy, but still, that’s not the point. The only power any of us have is to file an official complaint with the FTC and make a distinct point, not just “I hate meta/Facebook and want them to go away” it has to be a logical complaint such as “their terms of service are overstepping their boundaries and taking ownership of data on competing platforms that they do not own to lock out competitors.” It’s really the only thing anyone in the US can do.
I would hate for the fediverse to die by zuck the cuck’s hand, but the sad truth is open source is the enemy of corporate platforms, and it’s encouraging enough that ActivityPub is enough of a threat to Meta that they’re willing to go to these measures to make sure their bottom line isn’t harmed. The real fucked up thing is their intention to farm other platforms users with their consent and that’s the real problem.
I can see that threads.net may harm the Fediverse. But, there might be some people that don’t like the threads client and want to use the fediverse to interact with them. This will divide us. Also, trying to have a standard were threads.net is blocked is very hard to spread. Maybe has to be default on the server side, or even better, a subscription.
Some instances will inevitably choose to federate, and that might be good, as a fedi gateway to the place.
The point is to save the rest of Fediverse from harm Meta can cause us.
