The Agora
In the spirit of the Ancient Greek Agora, we invite you to join our vibrant community - a contemporary meeting place for the exchange of ideas, inspired by the practices of old. Just as the Agora served as the heart of public life in Ancient Athens, our platform is designed to be the epicenter of meaningful discussion and thought-provoking dialogue.
Here, you are encouraged to speak your mind, share your insights, and engage in stimulating discussions. This is your opportunity to shape and influence our collective journey, just like the free citizens of Athens who gathered at the Agora to make significant decisions that impacted their society.
You're not alone in your quest for knowledge and understanding. In this community, you'll find support from like-minded individuals who, like you, are eager to explore new perspectives, challenge their preconceptions, and grow intellectually.
Remember, every voice matters and your contribution can make a difference. We believe that through open dialogue, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to discovery, we can foster a community that embodies the democratic spirit of the Agora in our modern world.
Community guidelines
New posts should begin with one of the following:
- [Question]
- [Discussion]
- [Poll]
Only moderators may create a [Vote] post.
Voting History & Results
view the rest of the comments
I don't think this is the purpose of federation. Threads exists and has a huge amount of users.
Meta will ensure that it grows rapidly and defederating them ensures that users looking to join the largest ActivityPub-based social media network will likely go in the direction of Meta's services.
The way that instances win this battle is to offer better services and a better experience than Threads. We simply don't have the userbase to kill Threads by defederating with them. When given a choice the average user will default to using Meta's services... it will take time and interaction with them to convince them to leave.
You mention 'users looking to join the largest activity-pub based social media network'
I have a question: Do you think we should be trying to compete for these users? In order to do that, wouldn't this instance have to try to grow very large?
To my mind, there are many downsides to having a few large instances on the fediverse. We've seen in just the last 2 days big instances going down because of vulnerabilities in new updates being exploited.
Also in general the experience of a very large community isn't good, and we've seen that trend with previous social media. Having smaller communities where individuals are semi-known leads to nicer communities, whereas huge social networks feel like screaming matches. The only reason old social networks pushed so hard for more users is for money making reasons. For us, too many people (especially casual people who dont contribute) on the server just strains our resources.
I think people need to learn a behavioral change where they S P R E A D O U T and realize that they don't need a large instance for lots of content and engagement.
Really interested in your thoughts on this though. I like your points.
I don't mean this instance or any single instance specifically. The idea of the 'defederate Meta' pact is to create a separate network of instances that have all blocked Meta services. That network of instances would have a tiny userbase compared to the network of instances that federated with Meta's services. If a generic user is looking to create an account on an instance then they'd likely just default to the network that has 8 billion users rather than the one with 10 million.
I agree with the idea of smaller communities being more attractive but I think that a social network, like the Internet, works best when it is fully connected with as little friction as possible. Communities and instances can grow or limit themselves as much as they'd like but the entire network itself shouldn't become fragmented.
I think Meta's goal here isn't to take over the Fediverse and own it like they own Facebook. They likely want to be like Google where they control none of the content (and all of the associated costs and legal issues) but provide the core services and ad networks that are so profitable. Google's "content" is the entire web, they simply provide a useful service (search) and, because of that service, they have the ability to mine incredibly valuable data which they use to generate revenue through ad targeting. I think Meta is aiming for this kind of business model so that they can dump the headaches that come from hosting massive amounts of user data/content.
I'm imagining 10 years into the future where you would, instead of using Google's Ad Sense, use Meta's ad platform since it would provide more money from advertisements as the ad targeting is using information gathered from the ActivityPub extensions that Meta develops. Meta devotes tons developer hours to extending the social media protocols so that people use them and Meta profits from the data collection and other services (hosting instances, storing data, etc) that don't require them to actually run a social media website directly. This makes Meta more like an aspiring symbiote rather than a hostile instance that wants to 'take over' the fediverse.
I think that, to combat this, people who are motiviated should be looking at ways to create a software ecosystem that counters Meta dominance. Instead people are looking at this like it's just another instance that they don't like. I think that's a very short-sighted way of addressing the issue.
Exactly. Keeping our platform as open as possible helps us to grow as a community.
If you hate Meta and love Lemmy, the best thing to do is to federate with them. We stand to benefit far more from their massive user base they are from our tiny one.