this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
335 points (96.1% liked)

Fediverse

17698 readers
2 users here now

A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.

Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".

Getting started on Fediverse;

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
335
Fedi Garden to Instance Admins: "Block Threads to Remain Listed" (wedistribute.org)
submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
170 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Server indexes of places for newcomers to join can be instrumental for Fediverse adoption. However, sudden rule changes can leave some admins feeling pressure to change policies in order to remain listed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 38 points 7 months ago (1 children)

@qjkxbmwvz I think the main fear is Embrace Extend Extinguish.

It's not about interacting with Threadworms, it's about sleepwalking into a situation where Meta is changing the very nature of ActivityPub itself.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm actually curious about "Embrace Extend Extinguish": What can they do? They "extend" the ActivityPub protocol in a proprietary way, ok. Doesn't mean any other instance has to use that, no? Ok, that would mean if an instance doesn't follow that extension, it can't interact optimally with Threads, but how does it matter? To me it seems all that can be lost by that is the content/user base that Threads brings into the Fediverse and then we are at the same point as we would be if we defederated immediately. Maybe I'm missing something here?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think this article, How to kill a decentralized network, gives one of the best explanations, because it uses a real world example of how it has happened in the past.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I guess it is impossible to say what would have happened if Google never used XMPP. To me it mostly looks like google joined XMPP and made it way bigger than it was before and eventually left it again, making it small again. But is it worse than before Google even joined?

Maybe, but can we say for sure?

Maybe the lesson is not "don't let the big corporate players in", but rather "make sure the development of the underlying protocol itself is done in an open way". If Google/Meta adds proprietary extensions, just don't add them to the main protocol. If they leave the protocol again or changed their implementation in a way that is largely incompatible with the open version, nothing is lost than what they brought in initially. Doesn't that make sense?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I agree.

I think a good example is how Slack started off by having good IRC integration, then slowly added features which were incompatible with IRC, and finally terminated IRC integration.

So clearly, Slack killed IRC, right? (...of course they didn't!)

I see the potential situation with Threads as similar.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

the problem occurs when most of the content comes from Meta (they will likely have the vast majority of Fediverse users). especially if major communities exist on their instance. when meta decides to no longer support fedi integration, those in the fedi are forced to decide between staying with their communities by ditching the fedi and moving to threads or having many of their communities ripped away.

meta will do this at some point as a play to draw users to them, but we can decide if we want to be affected when that comes to pass.