I really don't like Meta but we should encourage the use of open protocols, regardless of who uses them.
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2023
64 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37747 readers
270 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I agree, but the issue I see is that if we don't de-federate them, they could aggregate and sell our data, which is something many people explicitly switched off of Meta services for.
Can't they aggregate and sell your Lemmy activity data without federating with your sever? It's all in the public Internet.
I guess it won't be that useful if they have no way of tracking you. But, I don't think federation makes it easier to track users. Do sever admins get ip addresses of every user on a server they federate with?
That’s how I feel. If Meta is going to have social media networks they might as well follow open standards.
I don't disagree, but if it takes off there's going to be a selective pressure on instances to engage with meta's activitypub stuff and that's going to let meta scrape data. I think that being able to engage with a wide variety of users, especially on platforms like mastodon or other similar offerings, is going to be a good thing, but the protocol needs implicit ways to protect its users outside of just blocking out other instances, whatever that looks like, so that decentralization can be granular and not just "how much do you want to give your data to meta"
I agree - my main reason for sharing with this post in particular is because the tie-in it has with Beehaw's recent decision to, at least temporarily, defederate with .world and sh.itjust.works; I just found the framing about decentralization, esp. the fact that the Fediverse is not a monolithic entity mandating a uniformly aligned approach, useful.
On the whole, I do think either ActivityPub's protocol spec would need some kind of privacy revision, seeing as it's already been a Problem where microblogging admins have had to block access by servers dedicated to mirroring Mastodon posts which don't delete their copies after posts are deleted by the user, or the software itself, Lemmy in our case, will have to make adjustments to its implementation of federation like you said. Of course, I'm mostly just conjecturing here and I don't actually know what either of these might look like 😅
The main part of this which I problematize are the people who are sticking their necks out for Meta and suggesting instances shouldn't be quick to defederate because this is, supposedly, a good opportunity to bring federated social media into the mainstream. Yet, in my opinion, they're not making enough of the fact that, even with their open-source contributions, Meta's software manufactures discord and bigotry on a massive scale. Letting them federate with an instance opens floodgates on that and for the stealing and selling of Fediverse participants' data.
So, on one hand, yes. absolutely agreed, on all counts.
On the other hand, the point of social media is to engage with people. What if your mom has an account on meta's new activitypub platform? Is the interoperability of these platforms not also a huge feature? What if I want to follow my mom on mastodon when she's on facebook whatever, but not give meta my data? These all work best when we can protect ourselves and engage responsibly, and defederation/blocking at a server level, while a WONDERFUL emergency button, also rejects a lot of the funcitonality and beauty of the fediverse. And I think there's probably room to find a middle ground that protects users well while still letting them have that sort of engagement?
Then text with your mom. Why does everyone always have to connect through every social media platform at once?
Edit: IF you want to be on an instance that doesn't federate with Meta. If you want to have access to meta's stuff then go to an instance that does federate with them obv.
I'm just posing a hypothetical here to show that, while yes I don't want meta getting any of their hands on my data, centralized social media is so much more than the company that runs it, and granularity of control over stuff like that (if such a thing were possible) would only be a benefit.
Mom doesn't necessarily have to be on Meta. If she wants her son to engage with her on a platform, she can be on kbin, lemmy or any other FOSS alternative once it reaches maturity.
Not being tied to a giant corporation should not mean "obscure" or "unusable for normal people".
People figured out email, they can figure out the fediverse, it just needs time.
Two things--
- I agree it's going to take time, but do you think meta will wait for that time to come?
- people did figure out email, but how many lay people are only using Gmail and not protonmail or whatever else?
Gmail happened because they were giving away email for free, below cost, so that they could use their customers' data.
That isn't legal any more in the post GDPR EU.
My point is that we need time and patience, not interfacing with Meta. Whether they use ActivityPub or something proprietary shouldn't matter to us and I'm not convinced matters at all in this context.
Meta already didn't wait - they have Facebook, Instagram etc. There's Twitter. We already exist in a space with big competitors, and somehow it works. Inviting them to our space sounds risky (risk of centralization, ads, bots, rage bait for engagement...).
If our thing is better, more wholesome, with less ads and bots, it's going to attract the people we want on our platform, regardless of whether or not we federate with Meta.
Plus, as was already said, fediverse success should not be measured by how many people use it. If enough do to produce good content and engage with, that's great on its own :) Small communities have benefits.
Their prequel on Meta: A few thoughts about #Meta's #ActivityPub project (and whether we should instantly block it)
To recap: I'm also very, very suspicious of Meta and I know they don't have good intentions - I'm not suggesting that maybe they've changed and they will do things differently, to "give them a chance" first. I just don't think that declaring to block them makes much sense at this point in time. Maybe they will give us real reasons to block them once they launch their platform. But I'm not by principle against interacting with Meta users, as long as I can avoid Meta's ads, black box algorithm and data mining.
I guess you do need to know the domain name to block it.
That's about all I'm interested in. They took a huge shit in the kiddy pool last time, and then sold vials of the water for one million dollars each.
I don't want to swim with meta.
I find it hard to understand the argument here, mastodon is full of people dramatically distancing themselves from the "fediverse meta drama" but I don't see anyone actually talking about what the issue is. Are people just vaguely afraid of how meta will change the culture of fediverse and don't have anything specific to say or am I missing something?
I think the biggest risk is "Embrace Extend Extinguish".
Kind of like how FB Messenger is based off XMPP.
Facebook puts out their new Twitter clone and embraces the fediverse to get access to our community and content.
Facebook extends the fediverse and adds reaction emojis and videos that only show up on MetaTwitter, not on Mastodon. This draws all the users to MetaTwitter and makes them the defacto instance for federated microblogging.
After a few years as MetaTwitter becomes an institution, they extinguish their open-source competition by blocking federation, and now all the Mastodon users have to make MetaTwitter accounts if they want to keep microblogging with their friends.
This happened with Internet Explorer, XMPP, and it's ongoing right now with Google's Amp email and project Fuschia.
Any attempt to extend GPL code in a non GPL way is an attack on our rights as users.
That, and Meta has the infrastructure/paid developers to develop features/respond to issues much faster, which might cause more casual users to migrate over because they see things they desire.
Another worry I've seen around is that if the Meta instance is not blocked/defederated, it could aggregate all that data and sell it, which is something lots of people explicitly do not want.
My question is. Isn’t all of this true regardless of whether people block them or not? Meta still has a huge audience and they could still do everything you outlined here.
Yeah I think the main risk is Meta using Open-Source's accomplishments, or good will, to help their proprietary software compete with open-source software.
They don't have to make their Twitter clone federated at all, but because they're making it federated, it harms existing fediverse users because they can use the communities to promote proprietary software, and they can use federation to "opensource-wash" their proprietary software. This competition takes away potential users of open-source software and allows Meta to have control over the fediverse.
I feel a little lame quoting myself, but I was just having this discussion elsewhere so I'm just going to copy/paste my thoughts rather then thinking of a different way to say it this time.
Say you have 10 servers. 7 are Lemmy, 3 are kbin. Great, each admin has control over those servers. Then you have Meta. They'll run 1 huge server. When the 10 other servers enable Federation, Meta now has 10 servers of content that isn't even on their own platform that they can sell. Your data will literally exist on the Meta server because your data is not contained within your instance/platform once it's Federated. Meta can then harvest the entire Fediverse for data like this. It's like an absolute wet dream for them. They don't even have to coax people to use their own platform!
If your instance has defederated from Meta, but is federated with an instance that does federate with Meta, then Meta still has access to all your data through that mutual server. So not only would people have to defederate from Meta, they'd have to defederate with anyone who does federate with Meta. If everyone isn't on board with this, it'll cause a huge fracture to form.
Make no mistake: Meta wants to sell your data. They know all it takes is one server to federate with them and they've unlocked the entire fediverse to be harvested. I would not be shocked to see large amounts of cash flowing in exchange for federation rights.
Meta must be defederated the second they so much as dip a toe into the Fediverse or everything you've ever done, or do, on any ActivityHub platform will be scooped up and sold.
I'll just add that Meta will state that anything on their server is their property, and Federation will put your data directly on their server, even if you're not a member of their platform.
But meta doesn't need a huge instance called meta to steal data from everyone else in the federation, they can just make an anonymous instance with a bot that subscribes to everything available and get it that way too. It's kinda the way the protocol works, this can't be solved by everyone just agreeing to block meta.
Sure, but you can't get investors interested in a bot. You can sell them a platform though. Meta will make the flashiest UI the fediverse has ever seen and sell that to investors, while harvesting and selling everything on the fediverse whether you use their platform or not. The only possible way to keep your data out of Meta's hands is to defederate anyone and everything associated with them. I know it sounds tinfoil hat, but honestly evaluate how Facebook does business and then imagine how ripe ActivityPub is for that sort of exploitation. If I used Facebook I have agreed to allow myself to be data mined, but if I use kbin I have not agreed, and yet, Meta can still do it if even one mutual server has agreed (been paid) to federate to both platforms.
Ah, I thought you meant more as in selling user data for ML training purposes or advertising.
Meta can still do it if even one mutual server has agreed (been paid) to federate to both platforms.
I dunno, maybe I'm too pessimistic but I don't see a way this ever works out in our favor, there will always be someone who doesn't care and just wants all the content. Just look at people being unable to get off reddit or twitter right now. When faced with a choice between sticking with 10% of the fediverse blocking meta, or 90% federating with them (since meta is probably going to be huge just by merit of being backed by billions of dollars), all their friends and companies and communities being on meta sites, there is no way they will choose to isolate themselves. It's how sites like reddit gained a monopoly in the first place, people just look for convenience and everything being in one place.
You're right of course. People will flock to Meta, it will probably become the poster boy of the Fediverse over a few years, and then little by little the evil will creep in until it's so established we just accept it, same as we've done with Facebook. The terrible thing is that it will not be something we can just op-out of. I can chose not to use Facebook. With this situation, I would have to chose not to use the entire ActivityPub protocol, not just Meta's platform.
It's a disaster waiting to happen. Like you said, I don't think we can do much, and even if we try, it'll fracture the whole fediverse concept. But when you ask "Why are people concerned about Meta using ActivityPub?" this is why.
But when you ask "Why are people concerned about Meta using ActivityPub?" this is why.
It's still worth asking to clarify rather than guess, I wasn't sure what are we discussing and I got 3 different answers so far anyway - it's either about ruining the ethos, stealing the data and/or changing the protocol.
Let's just hope fediverse manages to get big enough before meta launches this so it manages to grow from the influx of new users rather than being stomped over completely.
it's either about ruining the ethos, stealing the data and/or changing the protocol.
Honestly, it's probably all 3 and more we haven't even though of yet. I don't think anyone could have predicted all the scandals Facebook has been involved in regarding misuse of user data, and that was just on their own platform. ActivityPub literally hands them the keys to the castle. Add in all the toxic political stuff and.. it just makes my head hurt.
Anyway, I appreciate having the conversation with you. Discussing it has helped solidify my feelings about it.
Concerns about cultural changes from an influx of ten times the users the entire Fediverse currently has from a platform that is known for having a particularly toxic, algorithm-poisoned userbase aren't specious or something you can ignore — even if the fears are "vague" in some sense they're very valid.
I have the same feeling than panos. I'm concerned by the Meta thing. But I'm more and more worry about Fediverse when I see people what instance admin should block or not. What is good or bad for the Fediverse. Maybe an idea to fight against big tech to take control over the fediverse could be to hard limit number of people on each instance. Let's say 5000 for example. It could promote smallest instances rather than the biggest. Because maybe the issue behind this huge instances in fediverse.
Wait, what? Meta is adopting ActivityPub? Any links about that?
I haven’t heard about this. Is this the Facebook meta? Are they doing something with the fediverse?
Yes I've been hearing about it for a week now, they have a platform or project called Threads which is kinda like Mastodon iirc. Apparently scheduled to be announced or released in November this year, but I have no sources to cite, sorry
Also it is actually readable 😄
view more: next ›