• gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    I mean there are a shitload of reasons to not federate with Threads, but I feel like “it will federate ads to your server” is kinda the only one I should need to mention.

  • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Meta’s moral shortcomings are even more reasons to federate with them and try to win over users and pressure Meta to implement better digital rights as well.

    “The terrorists moral shortcomings are even more reasons to negotiate with them and try to win them over.”

    Don’t negotiate with terrorists.

    Also the article sets up defederation from Meta as if it doesn’t do anything. I don’t think that’s true though.

    • Otter@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      The terrorists moral shortcomings are even more reasons to negotiate with them and try to win them over

      You’re not negotiating with the terrorists (Meta), you’re engaging with the public to explain why the terrorists are bad and why they shouldn’t buy what’s being sold.

      The argument is that we aren’t going to win this with sheer numbers or funding, so we need to slowly get people to understand why they are better off picking Mastodon/Fediverse over threads. Every instagram user is already being tossed into Threads, and you can’t bring those people over if they never see posts or content from the Fediverse

      • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Maybe. But that’s a big maybe. It could equally be that Threads becomes the most powerful entity on the Fediverse and what they do becomes law (like shutting off a certain instance).

          • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            In principle, yes. But if 99% of users are on one server, then that server has a disproportional amount of power in the network. If they choose to defederate another server, it’s essentially a death sentence.

              • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Most users would probably jump away from that server in that case, so in all likelihood they would.

            • helenslunch@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              That makes absolutely no sense. If they choose to defederate then it is no different than if they had never federated in the first place, which is what it sounds like you want.

              • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                It is different because if we defederate in the first place, then perhaps 99% of users would not congregate in that server.

                • helenslunch@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  What server are you referring to? Threads? They already have 99.9%. No one is going to join Threads because it’s “the biggest server”, they’re going to join because they’ve never heard of the Fediverse and want to chat with their friends and follow businesses and personalities.

                  If they know what the Fediverse is, they’re not going to join Threads, because no fully-informed person is going to make that decision.

          • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            That is not really true and anyone who actually believes that is in for a rude awakening.

            See I think that you’re a bit confused because when they say that or things similar to that what they really mean is that no one person controls the fediverse. Not that there are no laws or rules because they’re absolutely are.

            For example if you go around spouting bigotry you will find yourself banned from a majority of public federated servers, and if you are on a server that you are not the owner of you will likely find yourself banned from that one. The fact that it’s decentralized does not mean that it doesn’t have rules or is some kind of free speech safe haven.

        • Otter@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Yea the other part of my reasoning is to try and prevent them from getting to that point.

          The short version of which is that our biggest selling point is “Join Mastodon, you can see all the same content and do the same things, but it’s run by a non-profit instead of Facebook”. Defederation means we lose that point, and it’s going to be very difficult for Mastodon to compete with the money and manpower that facebook has.

          “Join Mastodon to see content that you can’t see otherwise” will have a much harder time competing with “Join Threads to see content that you can’t see otherwise”

      • Blaze@dormi.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 months ago

        you can’t bring those people over if they never see posts or content from the Fediverse

        It’s still possible. Reddit didn’t became popular because it federated with Digg.

        When Lemmy will become the reference for human provided answers, people will join. How fast it will happen depends on how bad the experience on Reddit becomes.

    • bean@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yeah same. I know what they mean but it’s not what’s there and it’s hard to take it seriously 🙈

  • Outsider9042@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    9 months ago

    It might have been fake, but weren’t there already reports of Meta blocking links/tags in relation to pixelfed?

    If it’s true, they’ve already proven to be a bad faith actor. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re already scraping data from every other instance that federates with them.

    At the end of the day, one side will be right. My moneys on the anti-threads side.

    • helenslunch@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      but weren’t there already reports of Meta blocking links/tags in relation to pixelfed?

      Much more likely a result of Meta’s notoriously shitty auto moderation algorithms than anything nefarious. I promise Meta is not risking the bad press and potential legal litigation to censor a service with 22k MAU.

      they’ve already proven to be a bad faith actor.

      They’ve done this for decades.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re already scraping data from every other instance that federates with them.

      I don’t know why people keep spreading this nonsense. If your instance is publicly visible (which it is) then Meta is likely already scraping it. They do not need federation to do that.

      • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I don’t know why people keep spreading this nonsense. If your instance is publicly visible (which it is) then Meta is likely already scraping it. They do not need federation to do that.

        They do it because they want to make the “Meta is already scraping anyway, so we should just all agree to their terms of service and start federating with them and become one big happy family”. It’s just good old anti-defederation rhetoric.

    • Otter@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      9 months ago

      I don’t like the “they haven’t done anything bad yet” argument for staying federated, since there are much better reasons for not doing so. They either have already, and we aren’t talking about it yet (ex. downranking fediverse content, those closed door meetings with admins), or they are going to once they need to extract a profit.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re already scraping data from every other instance that federates with them.

      I would be surprised if they aren’t already, and they’re likely scraping data from the defederated instances as well.

      I think microblog instances should stay federated because that’s the best way to fight against threads. (longer discussion here: https://lemmy.ca/post/11771031)

  • Konala Koala@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Are you sure you don’t mean a Universal Declaration of Fediverse Independence from Reddit, Threads, and Twitter/X?

  • Carrolade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    Many people like simplistic garbage. You can’t convince them to like something better, as that creates demands on them to grow as a person, when they likely have other priorities in their lives that demand their attention more forcefully.

    This is why McDonalds is the worlds most successful restaurant. Not because it is good, but because it is undemanding.

    So, when people think we can pull users from the McDonalds crowd with superior quality, it just makes me laugh.

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      Users “owning” their content in that way would be the instant death of the Fediverse. If anyone can put whatever nonsense license terms they want on each individual comment or post, how could that chaos possibly be federated?

      A better approach would be to recognize that if you’re posting your words up on a giant billboard you’re not going to be able to control who sees them.

    • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Is there single direction federation right now? I don’t think there is?

      Also it would probably be more realistic for instances to put a default license on content. Users don’t want to bother choosing a license and most users wouldn’t even know what that means.

  • tutus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    9 months ago

    Can we stop all this philosophising and just get on with enjoying it for what it is? Please?

    I’m really tired of hearing everybody’s thoughts on Meta and Threads. And souls. And money. And the future. There are too many captains of the ship who want their 15 minutes of steering time. Opinions ate like assholes, everybody has one.

    If you want Meta and Threads in your life, then join it or an instance that is going to federate with it. If you don’t, move to an instance that won’t. Same applies for any community that your part of. Or start your own. That’s the beauty of this.

    Can we please let it rest?

        • Carrolade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yes, but I’m not complaining about being tired of reading comments about this.

            • Carrolade@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              So, since I’m not going somewhere and then complaining about going there, my actions are reasonable and normal. Since you clicked on the post, and then complained about what it clearly was going to be about, yours are not. Thus, we are not the same, and your “yea you too” comment simply made no sense.

              Not that any of this is particularly surprising on the internet.

              • tutus@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                I think your confusing me with somebody who cares what your view of your actions is, or what your expectations on the internet is.

                All you’ve done is complain about me posting my opinion. Not the actual opinion. But that I just posted it.

                If you don’t agree with me, that’s cool. But try to use a few more brain cells to make it a constructive argument that we can discuss rather than the childish bullshit you’ve posted so far.

                • Carrolade@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  I haven’t complained about a single thing. All I did was try to give you an idea that you may not have thought of, and then make an amusing observation and answer a question of yours.

                  Not my fault if it bothered you.

                  I don’t disagree with you at all. I just thought that maybe you hadn’t considered that you don’t have to read something if you suspect you may not like it. This doesn’t occur to everyone, you see.

  • helenslunch@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    9 months ago

    It can’t. But that was never the intention. Soul was never the intention. The intention was reducing reliance on proprietary and cancerous platforms.

  • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Now we are trying to make a less obvious headlines to push pro meta propaganda, right?

    We, the signees of the fedipact are not in fear. We know that meta has a horiffic track record of both human rights violations and data security violations.

    Its actually the core reason why I decided to make a new community at !anticorporate@lemmy.giftedmc.com. Those who think that corporate greed and shareholder primacy are cancer in our society are very welcome.

    • blue_berry@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      9 months ago

      The Fedipact is deeply regressive. It follows web2 logic, meaning, it treats the arrival of Meta, like it delt with problems in web2: it uses defederation like cancelling - although cancelling heavily depends on the network effects of social media, most of which Meta owns. While in web2, it was possible to isolate people that one was at odds with through this, it doesn’t work like this here, because the cost to do so are much higher, when in web2 they were zero. You are basically trying to cancel the thing that gave you cancelling. This is why the Fedipact will be neither effective against Meta, nor other similar problems in the future. Most of this stems, I think, from the fact that the Fediverse is overwhelmed with the situation and doesn’t have a better solution, and that it hasn’t really understood network effects and how they work in the new, federated social web; so, it falls back in old, regressive behaviour.

      • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        We‘re not cancelling anyone. We‘re shaping our world like we see fit. You should try it, its great.

        • blue_berry@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          That’s great, but you are not alone in this world. You cannot just pretend like Meta doesn’t exist. Actually, it will be the most powerful instance in the Fediverse. Its a new reality the Fediverse finds itself in and you just want to opt out of it and carry on like before. I understand it, but I just don’t think it will work.

          • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            Your wording shows that you‘re fully convinced that meta is some kind of deity. Instead, they’re a cancer that spreads through the internet and the real world by now. We‘re not ignoring them, we‘re effectively boycotting them.

            For a short best of of meta‘s misdeeds, visit the fedipact.

            • blue_berry@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Your wording shows that you‘re fully convinced that meta is some kind of deity.

              Nope, just a company. I know that it has done some bad things. I just don’t think your strategy is effective.

              We‘re not ignoring them, we‘re effectively boycotting them.

              How can you effectively boycott something without social media? The Fediverse has ca. 2 million active users, Meta services have much more. If boycotting something means cutting yourself off from most of social media, nobody will notice and it won’t hurt Meta a bit. Its the #deletefacebook all over again.

              • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                You can think that my strategy isnt effective. I just couldnt care less to be frank.

                I‘m not cutting myself off from most of social media more than when I left facebook, twitter and then reddit.

                You got it backwards mate. They are following us because we‘re gaining traction. We‘re just going to stay ahead.

                • blue_berry@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  They are following us because we‘re gaining traction. We‘re just going to stay ahead.

                  Agreed.

                  It’s fine. I guess we want to achieve the same thing but with different strategies. Let’s see what the future will bring.

  • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    9 months ago

    how can the Fediverse grow without loosing its soul in the process?

    It can’t? Rather obvious that the “soul” of a community is defined by it’s members and the bigger the community the more mainstream this soul will become. Maybe the federation mechanic offers some solutions here, but that remains to be seen.

  • Fapper_McFapper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I don’t think it can but hear me out for a second. How about we just don’t grow? We’re not beholden to stock owners needing to see growth year over year. Can we just be happy with what we have?

    • Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      I don’t think it needs to be our goal, but I think if the fediverse gets popular, we should let it grow. I see this place as an infinite green space for people to come and feel free to discuss their interests. Lemmy’s communities ensure that it scales, because you only join ones that interest you. Then the community can enforce whatever spirit of discussion it wants to maintain and people can create another community if they want to try something different.

      • astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        My thoughts exactly. Growth is a byproduct of quality. Similarly, if the Fediverse grows too much and quality starts to slip, we should also let it shrink until quality comes back. I think our aim should be quality, and anything else is just a side effect.

    • nadram@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      9 months ago

      100% agree with you. Growth must not be the goal, maybe a byproduct. Focusing on growth will eventually compromise the quality of our experience.

      • Fapper_McFapper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        Absolutely agree with you as well. Natural growth as a byproduct would mean that those that wish to stay in the fediverse like what the see and stay with the community.

    • Boiglenoight@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yes. The argument that we need to grow is a capitalistic one imo. This isn’t a capitalistic platform afaik. Small communities are naturally better, I think.

        • Artemis@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yes, but organic growth has its limits unlike capitalistic growth. We can’t grow infinitely and if we grow fast, that growth might be gone as quickly as it arrived.

    • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      We will absolutely grow. But „organically“ as every other community that stays healthy does. Most people are just used to the inflated expectations that start ups have.

      But yes, I dont see a reason to force growth, especially not with meta.