611
Mastodon's Founder & CEO Gives His Thoughts on Meta's Threads
(blog.joinmastodon.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
611 points (98.1% liked)
Fediverse
28179 readers
482 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think E/E/E is still a risk. If some "high follower" type people start joining Threads, and people on Mastodon start following them and making that content a big part of their feed, those people are not going to be happy if Threads accounts suddenly disappear because Meta make arbitrary, incompatible changes.
Hopefully it won't actually extinguish Mastodon/the Fediverse, but it can still do damage.
IMHO this is 100% the plan. If they play their cards right they stand to take out two birds with one stone (heh). They've already paid celebrities to be on there.
Still, this can only happen if Threads gets massive enough relative to the rest of the fediverse that the incompatibility doesn't hurt them equally.
...that is to say, it's all pretty likely, unless other strong competitors show up with ActivityPub support.
I don't think Meta really gives a shit about the Fediverse. They are hoping to take out Twitter though, and the Fediverse could be collateral damage.
Exactly, They don't give a shit about Fediverse.
So why using acticitypub at the first place?
Marketing and content boost for the start maybe? Mastodon has come up a lot recently (hell, even in local radio), so Meta can use this to promote their own product. And already have content right there for users joining Threads, it's not a blank slate.
After the initial boost and when sucking up millions of users they can just defederate and have their Facebook (or rather Twitter) 2.0.
Extra data to scrape through their servers.
Probably partly to avoid regulatory scrutiny. They can say they're not being monopolistic (even though they 100% are) because they're embracing open standards.
That's why they're not launching in the EU.
They're already over 2 million in like 2 hours.
It's not gonna extinguish the fediverse in the same way nobody leaving reddit joined Mastodon as a replacement. They're technically compatible, but these are entirely different styles of sites we're talking about. Lemmy and Kbin are gonna keep on trucking regardless of what happens to the Twitter-likes.
But they're definitely going to try and kill Mastodon/similar through social engineering. Everybody's favorite content creators, organizations, and brands will be on Threads, not Mastodon, and when they lock it down we'll lose access to them and end up needing a Threads account. I don't understand why anyone trusts this company won't try to secure market dominance and then monopolize it. The guy says "we'll just be right back where we are now," but this could easily decrease the Mastodon population by pulling away anyone who doesn't care about federation or open source and just wanted a decent Twitter alternative.
Exactly, Jabber got worse after Google defederated, not the same as it was, because people that did not care about decentralized network jumped GTalk. I suspect majority of current mastodon users don't care about it either and won't want to stay on the empty network.
Except that I don't need a Twitter account so I won't need a threads account either. But I do not, in any way, want to interact with a meta owned product and don't like the idea of them being involved in the fediverse.
I think the people that value being on a decentralized service will stay on a decentralized server. The people that would abandon one platform to follow their favorite "high follower" poster are normies that never cared about what service they were using to begin with. Meta may absolutely take a large share of users to their platform in the future if they shut off federation and our favorite celebrities and shitposters are no longer visible. But I don't really see how that is any different than Twitter currently having all the celebrities and high volume shitposters. We already can't see them. The EEE argument just strikes me as sour grapes that "their" users are going somewhere else. And I'm on the fediverse (both Mastodon and kbin) so I see the value here. But I'm not going to get angry that normies don't want to put the effort into learning this ecosystem when they have their own lives and struggles and a limited number of social causes to care about.
Now what does bother me is Meta having an outsized influence on the development of the protocol of ActivityPub. We've seen something similar to this with Google using Chrome to push some additions to how browsers handle HTML standards/elements, like supporting DRM.
All I can say is that, I started using Jabber before GTalk federation, but ultimately Google made me leave Jabber.
What actually happened is that some friends who originally were on Jabber switched to GTalk, because later Google added it to Gmail, making it more convenient.
So essentially when they defederated, my network was pretty empty.
Why didn't your friends return to Jabber once GTalk locked them out?
Because thats not how human nature works. Convenience tramps everything and almost noone is as ideologically driven as they think they are.
Then the only real solution is to disallow big companies from making convenient products. At some point the onus has to be put on the average user. Throwing your hands up and saying "the normies are too stupid to consider their own self interest" may be true but it is also an unsolvable problem if they choose to never put any thought into their own lives and problems.
My point is that we shouldnt enable those big companies even more than they currently are. We shouldnt let them into our own garden. This is a lemmy.world thread, i didnt even know that, i am using kbin. Tomorrow, this might have been a threads thread and i might have not even noticed it. But if for x, y, w reasons, kbin defederates from threads one day, i will notice that most of my feed will have 0 content all of a sudden.
Taking stuff away is a very powerful motivator. We will end fighting human nature. While if we never federate with threads and naturally grow the rest of the fediverse, this wont happen. It's easier to grow a garden amongst other gardens than to grow it next to a skyscraper.
If this is how it will play out, then we're already doomed. Meta will throw money at the platform until everyone you want to follow is there, which will leech fediverse users until there are only the hardcore users left.
The solution to that, which I would fully support, would be for kbin, lemmyworld, etc to deferate from threads from the beginning. You can't lose something you never had and personally, I don't want to interact with a meta owned product so the prospect of what you just described bothers me. If lemmyworld doesn't defederate from them I would 100% move to another instance that does.
Edit: So there is actually a pact for instances to sign pledging to block meta and I don't see lemmy.world on it. That said, it's a long list and it's manually updated so I may have just missed it. https://fedipact.online/
I do wish the ActivityPub licensing had more requirements for data protection. They failed in that regard.
Because GTalk integrated with Gmail and with ability to still having access to other friends was much more convenient and they didn't care about who owns their favorite instant messaging network. And majority of their friends were also on Google.
The truth is that only purists will stay, and most people (even tech people) don't give damn about being locked out.
Google also broke things in a subtle way. You could see the person is online, if they messaged you you would get their message, if you messaged them, your message would show as delivered, but never get to them.
So first thing you thought that maybe they are just busy. When you started suspecting something is not right then it made you think that maybe there's an issue with Jabber etc
I don't think the defederation was ever announced, it was more like a bug that was never fixed.
Thats now how things work. Let's say that now you are following people from fediverse. Those people are motivated to post things, because someone needs to, because they want to grow the community, etc. Meta joins, then meta people post a trillion things(because they are a trillion people, some of which might even be paid by meta). Those initial fediverse people no longer post things because "they have already been posted".
Then you defederate meta. Congratulations, now you have 0 content and 0 content submitters. You will start to start from the beginning, from an even worse point than we are atm. You are now dead.
Very few people are as ideologically driven as they think they are. Ultimately it is about quality of life. And maybe you can tolerate some junk because of your ideology but everyone has their limit. Content is king, not only for the "normies" but for everyone. What is the point of a fediverse that has nothing to interact with and noone to interact with you?
Then the fediverse was only a temporary stopgap until Meta (or any other corporation) made a better product than Twitter. It was doomed from the start.
Big companies can do whatever they want. But we are enabling them to do it easier if we federate with them. When i joined reddit 15? years ago, it wasnt that dissimilar to the fediverse. Of course it is even harder now to replicate the thunder in a bottle that reddit was and to scale but still.
The culture may have been similar to fediverse culture, but the underlying structure was nowhere near similar. It was just as much a private site run by (benevolent) dictators.
The thing is that this can happen even without active malice.
If the product owners or engineers decide "hey, we want to add this cool feature, but it's not supported by activity pub" the path of least resistance -- bypassing the long process of changing the activity pub spec and getting everyone else on board -- can be super tempting, and come from a place of wanting to make your product better.
Those ostensibly good intentions can lead to E/E/E without actively meaning to.
You could argue that this is what happened to Jabber.
Although Facebook Messenger never made a good faith attempt to interoperate with Jabber in the first place.
It was Google's GTalk not Facebook's Messenger.
Facebook never needed Jabber for their messenger.
It was both, but Facebook Messenger was less widely known and was kind of janky. here's a source that explains part of what was going on.
https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/44482/can-you-send-messages-to-facebook-users-from-external-xmpp-servers
Ah I see, so they never federated with XMPP. This would be comparable if they would take Mastodon server and build Threads from it, but never connected it to the Fediverse.
GTalk used Jabber to help bootstrap their I'm then stole part of Jabber's user base.
EEE was my first thought on seeing that threads would federate, so I felt a bit of relief when I looked at the op just now and saw that Rochko directly addressed this, then I read what he said and it doesn't seem like he addressed it at all.
Yeah, I don't find his answer on E/E/E comforting. However if nothing changes hopefully the niche that's already on Mastodon and kbin/Lemmy could survive regardless of Threads as I'm fairly happy with the state it is right now.
Google effectively killed XMPP this way. During the time the federation was working the protocol essentially stood still, because they were afraid of breaking GTalk. Once GTalk gained enough momentum Google just pulled the plug.
https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html