The fediverse is discussing if we should defederate from Meta’s new Threads app. Here’s why I probably won’t (for now).
(Federation between plume and my lemmy instance doesn’t work correctly at the moment, otherwise I would have made this a proper crosspost)
The whole point for me moving to the Fediverse was to get away from companies\platforms like FB\IG,and Twitter. Federate all you want with Meta I just hope there’s a running list of which instances does and doesn’t federate with meta so I can join the latter. Not sure why people are so hot on looking at pictures of people’s ugly kids on 2 platforms.
This is why I use a paid host for Mastodon. Six bucks a month gets me my own instance with a custom domain and full admin rights.
There are three of us on said instance, and only two of us are active. It’s easier to build a consensus that way. Absolutely none of us want to federate with anything Meta/Facebook. I preemptively blocked threads.net yesterday. To quote Khan Noonien-Singh:
“Let them eat static.”
See, that’s the nice thing about a federated solution. I can use my personal instance that federates with Mata and you can use one that doesn’t and we can both be happy and still talk to each other. Being able to pick an instance that suits your preferences is the biggest selling point of the fediverse.
I think I understand what you’re trying to do here, Meta connecting to the fediverse and being blocked from a bunch of instances would be confusing to new users. For instance, if you’re following a bunch of people at Instagram and Facebook and bring over those people to Threads, if they can’t see everyone because they’re blocked, that would be bad for meta. I say keep them out and the more instances that block meta, the better.
Do you want Facebook to do to us what Google did to XMPP???
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
Yup they can mess up the fediverse in the near future
https://fabulous.systems/posts/2023/06/meta-is-a-danger-to-the-fediverse/
https://fediversereport.com/meta-plans-on-joining-the-fediverse-the-responses/
And there’s Google’s with their new privacy policy states that it can use publicly available data to help train its AI models
They only cares about money and unlimited growth.
That happens whether they are defederated or not. They have 1.6bn users, the rest of the fediverse is a rounding error.
This is what happened with XMPP:
In 2013, Google realised that most XMPP interactions were between Google Talk users anyway. They didn’t care about respecting a protocol they were not 100% in control. So they pulled the plug and announced they would not be federated anymore. …
As expected, no Google user bated an eye. In fact, none of them realised. At worst, some of their contacts became offline. That was all. But for the XMPP federation, it was like the majority of users suddenly disappeared. Even XMPP die hard fanatics, like your servitor, had to create Google accounts to keep contact with friends. Remember: for them, we were simply offline. It was our fault.
Even if the entire fediverse defederates from the Meta instance, they have a huge network which already exists. And people who want the things that a huge network brings will want to be part of it. Mass defederation will just push some people onto the Meta instance because it’s the only place a huge network is operating (and many already have an Insta account so they’re already on it anyway).
That’s not to say that federating with them is necessarily better. Some users will prefer a smaller network. Some instances will want better moderation than Meta are likely to provide. Moderation issues might make it nigh on impossible for most instances to federate anyway.
But you can’t stop them dominating the fediverse by universally defederating. That is not an option. Gmail got big enough to not need XMPP federation; Meta and other potential mega-corp instances are already huge, they don’t need us at all.
The best hope might be for several mega-corp instances to hold each other hostage. Google could kill XMPP because none of its users understood that they were part of a federation and barely noticed when the tiny proportion of non-google users disappeared. But if there’s a Meta instance and a Google instance and a Mozilla instance … it’s hard for one of them to unilaterally withdraw without handing their users over to a competitor.
I addressed the point about Facebook dominating the fediverse in another comment in this thread. To keep it short, it’d be like they just popped up another platform like Reddit, Twitter, etc, and it wouldn’t really change the trajectory of the fediverse that much, since it’d be no different to another monolithic social media platform.
And for people that want the fediverse to stay small, that would be fine. For those coming from very large sites like Twitter or Reddit, it often will not be because the value of those sites comes from the size of their networks.
It won’t kill the fediverse but it might kill the various dying-mega-site migrations. For some that will be welcome. For others, not so much.
There isn’t a one-size fits all here. The biggest danger is the fediverse devolving into a paranoid war of words solely because some people think there should be.
Do you want Facebook to do to us what everyone else did to open standards???
Build a closed alternative, ignore that we even exist, bind all the users and have us fall back to the low levels of relevance we had before Twitter and Reddit went crazy.
At least with open standards we have a slim chance at giving our input on how we want things to be.
It’s nice that you think Facebook will care about or be influenced by any input we have. They won’t play nice, if you think they will, I have a bridge to sell you.
We only stand a chance if we cut them off from the fediverse completely. If we don’t, they will throw their weight around and kill the rest of it.
Reddit and Twitter are massive, and we’re becoming more and more relevant, even though they both still exist. One more service we aren’t connected to won’t exactly make us irrelevant, we have momentum.
Could you please be a bit less aggressive? The post is titled “Why I probably won’t defederate from Threads” and I’ve given my personal arguments. I’ve also addressed the points you’re making, both in my post and in other comments over here.
It isn’t titled “Why you shouldn’t defederate from Threads” or “Why we shouldn’t defederate from Threads”. It’s not even titled “I will never defederate from Threads”. There are many valid and well-written arguments for defederating. I posted my counter-arguments for a bit of balance yet I have no intention to force or even convince anyone to do as I do.
So let’s please be civil around here and not go around brigading people who have different opinions with arguments they have already heard multiple times. If you want to set a good example, then do that for a respectful discussion just as much as you try to do it for the ethical aspects of federation.
I understand a lot of the arguments made and in reality you’re right, if they want our data, they’ll get it.
However, I also think that making it as difficult and therefore expensive as possible for them is a legitimate way to respond and make it clear to them that they are here on sufferance and not welcome. That might be seen as immature and pointless and maybe that’s so, but I do think it’s important to defederate from Threads to demonstrate our collective unwillingness to become their commodity.
Your argument is fully valid and defederating might be the right thing to do for you.
In the end, I have to weigh their cost to scrape my data against my cost to access content that I need. As someone who has built scrapers for scientific purposes before, I can tell you that building something that scrapes Mastodon and Lemmy instances is not a single cent more expensive than getting my data through federation. It’s also probably a lot more reliable because they can get everything, not just what their users subscribe to. On the other hand, my cost for accessing my friends’ and family’s posts as well as corporate social media accounts if I don’t do it through federation is creating an account in their proprietary app. And then they will be able to get a lot more of my data than they could ever scrape from my Mastodon profile.
I take your points entirely and I do understand why you feel the way you do. Maybe what I’m saying is more symbolic - a gesture - than a realistic chance of fending them off but I do feel it’s important to send that message, even if it costs them nothing financially.
I only use one Meta product (FB) and only that because its a way to stay in contact with family and friends that are just not technically able to migrate to a healthier platform but I don’t use their app. I use the website, with Social Fixer, in a Firefox Container and use Frost on my phone. I have managed to get all my family and some friends to switch to Signal rather than WhatsApp and I have zero interest in Instagram. I think using mitigating methods and technologies like these, in conjunction with defederating from Threads (is it going to be one central instance?) is a viable way forward.
I don’t see who this gesture is aimed at. Meta execs won’t care. They lose nothing. The result will be the exact same as building a closed platform from the start. And the users won’t even notice because the mainstream doesn’t even know that the fediverse exists.
I agree that getting people away from Meta should be our priority. But we don’t do that by cutting them off from the fediverse and then begrudgingly making a Threads account to talk to the people we haven’t won over yet. We do that by showing them that there alternatives that they can use without losing access to the content they already follow.
Its interesting that everyone focuses on the privacy and the EEE risk of this, but my reasons for leaving Facebook were that Facebook is actively-allowing-the-promotion-of-genocide-because-not-moderating-is-better-for-their-bottom-line Evil. I left facebook because I’m not willing to provide the (even infinitesimal) boost to their network effects that my account had. For the same reason, Threads is an instant defederate on launch.
“It forces them to play by the rules”
They will play by the rules because that’s the Embrace step of EEE, not because anyone forced them to.
