Meta/Instagram launched a new product called Threads today (working title project92). It adds a new interface for creating text posts and replying to them, using your Instagram account. Of note, Meta has stated that Threads plans to support ActivityPub in the future, and allow federation with ActivityPub services. If you actually look at your Threads profile page in the app your username has a threads.net tag next to it - presumably to support future federation.
Per the link, a number of fediverse communities are pledging to block any Meta-directed instances that should exist in the future. Thus instance content would not be federated to Meta instances, and Meta users would not be able to interact with instance content.
I'm curious what the opinions on this here are. I personally feel like Meta has shown time and time again that they are not very good citizens of the Internet; beyond concerns of an Eternal September triggered by federated Instagram, I worry that bringing their massive userbase to the fediverse would allow them to influence it to negative effect.
I also understand how that could be seen to go against the point of federated social media in the first place, and I'm eager to hear more opinions. What do you think?
If we could ensure 100% compliance with a meta-blockade then I'd be for it.
However, that isn't going to happen and any instances that do federate with Meta will be the part of the Fediverse that exists to billions of people. Those instances will become the dominate instances on the Fediverse for people who want to get away from Meta but still access the Fediverse services. Lemmy, as it stands now, is only a few million people at most. We simply do not have the weight to throw around on this issue.
It is inevitable that commercial interests join the Fediverse and the conversation should be around how we deal with that inevitability rather than attempting to use de-federation as a tool to 'fix' every issue.
Defederation can go as far as including any instance that federates with Meta, even if they don't do this directly.
It still doesn't change the very basic math of Meta having billions of users and the existing Fediverse, across all services, still numbers in the millions.
A social network is only as strong as the size of a network. If you're trying to get an average person to join an instance are they going to want to join an instance with access to a few million people or an instance that can contact most of the planet?
Cutting an instance off from the largest userbase of any service on the Internet is suicide for an instance.
There are guaranteed to be instances that do not de-federate with Meta and so users looking to escape Meta will move to those independently owned instances as it allows them to get off of Meta services without losing contact with users and groups that they were previously using.
It is disheartening to see how often de-federation is offered as a solution to any given problem or grievance. This mindset ensures that the network will be an ideologically fragmented mess instead of a single open social network.
Meta having billions of people gives Meta the evil ability to scrape and steal all their personal info. Zuck even called them “stupid fucks”.
Communities don’t need to reach billions. They just need to be honest and central for the topics people wish to discuss.
Meta doesn’t allow that - they use the feed and algos to push agendas, run psych experiments on children, redline real estate ads, and psyop for political gains.
I can’t understand trying to foster an actual community and joining it to Meta. They have just proven themselves to be bad actors too many times. Why should anybody trust them now?
Nonsense. A social network thrives on quality, not size. In fact more online communities have been killed by uncontrolled growth than by anything else (the Eternal September effect) when the old culture of the community was swept away by masses of new users.
Completely agree. It should be reserved for extreme cases only: illegal content, bot instances, and calls to violence/hate speech friendly instances. That should be it.
The tactic of EEE only really works if people are willing to go for the "extend" part of it. If we don't make concessions for the sake of interoperability, I think we'll be fine.
This makes no sense at all. People who want to get away from Meta will drop those instances and move to the rest of the fediverse.
Agreed, defederation seems to currently be used for any instance that doesn't follow the allowed values that all instances must have. This is absurd and directly counter to the whole point of the fediverse in the first place. It's supposed to be linked to everything, and every instance can have wildly different rules and styles. At the end of the day all that should be largely transparent to a user who can sub to anything across the fediverse with a single account.
Defederation needs to be reserved for actively harmful instances, which isn't just memes you don't like or hosted by a "big" company.
Big companies are actively harmful. Just read the example of xmpp and Google that is posted everywhere.
If I want Facebook, I'll go to Facebook. You're not going to guilt me or anyone else for not wanting this to also be connected to Facebook.
How many websites is enough? Why does every community HAVE to be connected with Facebook? Meta is absolutely not a victim. They don't need defending.
Some of us don't want our family to see every single thing that we do online, and that should be ok. Anyone who would insist on knowing that information about me is someone who I would stay very far away from.
I think a lot of the issue is the actual term. Defederation sounds like a lofty thing that we're inflicting on a server. It's just a block. Like you block a person or community on this instance, they still can type messages and they're still on the instance but you can't see them.
If I'm running an instance then defederation is basically me choosing inserting a user onto your personal block list. You may like a certain type of humor and I think it's annoying. You may like Popping videos but I find them gross. I can choose, on my own to block those things and my blocking Popping videos or dead baby joke communities is my personal choice.
But if I chose to add those items to YOUR block list then suddenly I'm in the wrong. It isn't up to me to say you can't like Popping videos (even if I find them gross) and I can't tell you that you can't read those dead baby jokes that you really laugh at (even if I think they're offensive).
So why even allow a feature like defederation? Because there is some content that we ALL wouldn't mind having blocked. It's unanimous that nobody wants spam in their feed no matter their position on Popping videos or dead baby jokes. People don't want to see CSAM in their feed. Nobody wants to see random private data about people being posted in their feed. In THOSE, very limited, cases then the ability of the instance admin to add an item to your block list is a positive feature. You only need a small group of people (moderators and admins) to detect and block abusive material and their work is shared by every single person on the instance.
Instead we have people who are advocating that we use defederation to impose their personal (or their group's) viewpoint on every other person on the same instance. This would be like me using my power to block spam instances in order to decide that you can't watch those Popping videos that you love so much. Suddenly this formerly useful tool is now being by others to curate what you're allowed to see on social media.
As far as Facebook, I imagine a lot of people would want to see content on Facebook via Lemmy. There will be instances that don't de-federate and those instances will see most of the user growth because they offer users both Fediverse and Facebook content... any instances that block Facebook will simply have a slightly different Fediverse with less people and less content.
The average user simply doesn't care about joining the battle against the corporate overlords, they're looking for the app that lets them see funny videos the easiest. Having all of the motivated ideological users in their own isolated bubble will ensure that Meta's section of the Fediverse can more easily be taken over by EEE. Meta will be the only developer developing features for the version of ActivityPub that is used in their network and so it will likely be adopted faster. Not having people developing FOSS-versions of ActivityPub extensions, apps and tools that are directly competing with Meta will create friction for people who want to transition away from Meta services and ensure their continued market dominance.
Federate with them, develop better tools and features, and then take their users away. Providing a better social media is how you beat Meta.
TL;DR
Federation isn't the tool for this kind of ideological splintering and;
Not federating with Meta services will ensure that they get all of the benefit of having an open source protocol without any competition for their userbase.
Defederation is a bigger deal than just a block. It's like a state not recognizing another state's drivers license. There needs to be a reason that's actively harmful to the system, like letting anyone get a license with any name or birth date they want.
Not liking the content isn't a reason. The content being illegal or bot spam is justifiable.
You make it sound as if those are all nice people who just have different opinions. Most of the people arguing strongly against defederation on the fediverse are just upset that the bigotry they got banned for spouting on all the traditional social networks isn't welcome here either. They thought they had found a clever workaround for the problem of being called out as assholes when they say hateful things online or spread conspiracy theories and now it turns out people aren't buying what they are selling here either.
The tools exist to block content you don't wish to see without defederation.
Defederation is the tool to block content admins and instance communities do not want on their instance. It is really not that hard to understand.
It is not just about me personally not wanting to see vile bigotry and hatred or misinformation. It is also that it shouldn't be a part of any community I want to be a part of because it will drive people away I would want to be a part of that community and/or victimize them.