I strongly encourage instance admins to defederate from Facebook/Threads/Meta.
They aren't some new, bright-eyed group with no track record. They're a borderline Machiavellian megacorporation with a long and continuing history of extremely hostile actions:
- Helping enhance genocides in countries
- Openly and willingly taking part in political manipulation (see Cambridge Analytica)
- Actively have campaigned against net neutrality and attempted to make "facebook" most of the internet for members of countries with weaker internet infra - directly contributing to their amplification of genocide (see the genocide link for info)
- Using their users as non-consenting subjects to psychological experiments.
- Absolutely ludicrous invasions of privacy - even if they aren't able to do this directly to the Fediverse, it illustrates their attitude.
- Even now, they're on-record of attempting to get instance admins to do backdoor discussions and sign NDAs.
Yes, I know one of the Mastodon folks have said they're not worried. Frankly, I think they're being laughably naive >.<. Facebook/Meta - and Instagram's CEO - might say pretty words - but words are cheap and from a known-hostile entity like Meta/Facebook they are almost certainly just a manipulation strategy.
In my view, they should be discarded as entirely irrelevant, or viewed as deliberate lies, given their continued atrocious behaviour and open manipulation of vast swathes of the population.
Facebook have large amounts of experience on how to attack and astroturf social media communities - hell I would be very unsurprised if they are already doing it, but it's difficult to say without solid evidence ^.^
Why should we believe anything they say, ever? Why should we believe they aren't just trying to destroy a competitor before it gets going properly, or worse, turn it into yet another arm of their sprawling network of services, via Embrace, Extend, Extinguish - or perhaps Embrace, Extend, Consume would be a better term in this case?
When will we ever learn that openly-manipulative, openly-assimilationist corporations need to be shoved out before they can gain any foothold and subsume our network and relegate it to the annals of history?
I've seen plenty of arguments claiming that it's "anti-open-source" to defederate, or that it means we aren't "resilient", which is wrong ^.^:
- Open source isn't about blindly trusting every organisation that participates in a network, especially not one which is known-hostile. Threads can start their own ActivityPub network if they really want or implement the protocol for themselves. It doesn't mean we lose the right to kick them out of most - or all - of our instances ^.^.
- Defederation is part of how the fediverse is resilient. It is the immune system of the network against hostile actors (it can be used in other ways, too, of course). Facebook, I think, is a textbook example of a hostile actor, and has such an unimaginably bad record that anything they say should be treated as a form of manipulation.
Edit 1 - Some More Arguments
In this thread, I've seen some more arguments about Meta/FB federation:
- Defederation doesn't stop them from receiving our public content:
- This is true, but very incomplete. The content you post is public, but what Meta/Facebook is really after is having their users interact with content. Defederation prevents this.
- Federation will attract more users:
- Only if Threads makes it trivial to move/make accounts on other instances, and makes the fact it's a federation clear to the users, and doesn't end up hosting most communities by sheer mass or outright manipulation.
- Given that Threads as a platform is not open source - you can't host your own "Threads Server" instance - and presumably their app only works with the Threads Server that they run - this is very unlikely. Unless they also make Threads a Mastodon/Calckey/KBin/etc. client.
- Therefore, their app is probably intending to make itself their user's primary interaction method for the Fediverse, while also making sure that any attempt to migrate off is met with unfamiliar interfaces because no-one else can host a server that can interface with it.
- Ergo, they want to strongly incentivize people to stay within their walled garden version of the Fediverse by ensuring the rest remains unfamiliar - breaking the momentum of the current movement towards it. ^.^
- We just need to create "better" front ends:
- This is a good long-term strategy, because of the cycle of enshittification.
- Facebook/Meta has far more resources than us to improve the "slickness" of their clients at this time. Until the fediverse grows more, and while they aren't yet under immediate pressure to make their app profitable via enshittification and advertising, we won't manage >.<
- This also assumes that Facebook/Meta won't engage in efforts to make this harder e.g. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish/Consume, or social manipulation attempts.
- Therefore we should defederate and still keep working on making improvements. This strategy of "better clients" is only viable in combination with defederation.
PART 2 (post got too long!)
Except that Threads isn't organized around topics / communities, it's organized like Insta / Twitter around following people, so there's no communities to flock to.
I'm not here to make excuses for Meta, but not a single one of these "sky is falling" posts actually articulate any real danger with federation. They just list all the bad things that have come out of Facebook to imply that surely something bad must happen here too then.
I did, if you read it. Past and continued malicious behaviour + open manipulativity means that what they say cannot be trusted.
Even if there aren't formal Communities (as in, like Lemmy), there are still communities of people.
Trust is not required in this equation. The fediverse exists as a technical system and we can see how it operates. Within the context of those bounds I see no path for meta to break it and no one has been able to explain one beyond vague generalities like "they can't be trusted".
Yes, but the point I was responding to was saying that communities like fediverse@lemmmy.world would lose all its users when they went to threadiverse@threads.net when that's simply not even possible.
I gave examples in part 2 in my post of various routes to destroy activitypub, or nore importantly, destroy or consume the existing network of people.
It is absolutely possible if fediverse content is presented as-if it's just from threads, and then the majority of posters in communities become threads users, and then they either subsume or defederate.
You can post to lemmy communities from in mastodon via @-ing, which Threads could easily add as another feature later. And referring to more general communities the same principle applies.
Your points boil down to "Threads will be easier to use and more attractive so people will use that", congrats, that's the case regardless of whether or not you federate. That's not a result of federation, that's a result of meta having a lot of money to make good apps.
This entire argument hinges on the idea that the Fediverse is filled with great content that Meta will just steal and present to their users when quite frankly that's just untrue. The fediverse is still a pale imitation of Reddit that is severely lacking in content and is still likely to die from never entering the virtuous cycle required to get a social network off the ground.
They boil down to much more than that. Even if it's harder to use, Facebook has the ability and the means to run campaigns to promote their own stuff even if it's worse. Furthermore, it's not just about that, it's also about the fact that federating with them entwines us with their communities, and given their size it will not take long for our organisation and communities to be entirely stuck to theirs.
Seems pretty alive to me, actually. And the risk is not just Facebook/Meta taking our content, but more us being sucked in by theirs and having their algorithms and strategies used to manipulate us and make us too dependent on their own infrastructure to sustain our own communities again, especially if they cut us off after ^.^ (the threat of which can then be used as leverage or to outright subsume large instances).
Federating doesn't change that.
Oh no, we've recreated Reddit with millions of users and a thriving community, what a nightmare!
Then go check whatever instance you're on three times throughout the day and do the same on Reddit and notice the distinct lack of change and movement on Lemmy/Kbin.
If you don't want to be manipulated by the algorithms that the Threads instances use to surface content, then don't subscribe to people on Threads, it's really not that complicated. If Meta leaves later and you find yourself desperately missing content, then guess what? That's not Meta killing the fediverse that's Meta having kept the fediverse alive for a while.
You do realise they can work on social groups right? It's not just individuals, but they can propagate and push for trends even outside their direct users and communities. And if you think you're immune to social manipulation, you're not (insert Garfield YOU ARE NOT IMMUNE TO PROPAGANDA image here ;p)
It makes it much much harder to do it on our network, which is the risk ^.^
The nightmare is that then they can kick us around at will, buy us off, or destroy us easily. Also, their users likely would not be very aware they're part of a federation. Did you not read the article I posted and the general concept of EEE and EEC? >.<. Furthermore, it means that their algorithms and mechanisms for pushing things become dominant and we become yet another userbase to be assimilated and farmed for manipulability by the Facebook Monolith.
Lemmy/Kbin is a little less active than Reddit. This doesn't mean it's dead, far from it! Have you looked in
neworhot?, or made sure you're looking at theAllorSubscribedfeed?Lemmy is pretty damn active.
Let me put it this way: advocating for Meta being federated with us is like asking to keep a bear in the same room as the family chihuahua.
Here I am saying “gee, I don’t think we should keep a bear and a chihuahua in the same room together. This seems like a really bad idea. Bears are pretty violent and this dog has no way to defend itself”.
Your reply is “Well bears eat salmon, not dogs, so i’m not worried about it. If the bear didn’t have good intentions, why would he be getting in the room with the dog? Besides, if he does start getting violent, we can just take the bear out of the room and separate the two.”
Nah man, i just like the dog, and I don’t need him getting fucked up. If you want the bear you can hang out with him outside, and have the same experience you would have had if he was inside. I get he keeps trying to come in, but I don’t see how its worth the risk to actually let him in.
Ah, see, the difference between your analogy that uses irreversible physical violence and the actual situation at hand is that blocking an instance or defederating takes a single button click, and isn't at all difficult for the dog to do.
Also a flawed analogy because in this case the chihuahua is a barely alive clone of a dog that is still much much healthier and actively trying to kill it, that bear might be the only thing that prevents the original dog from killing it.
Hey man, Threads is that way if you want to use it, but I came here because I very specifically do not have any interest. You can sign up there, use it all you want! But don’t fuck the rest of us over because you want to use both platforms at the same time.
And by the way, your cloning analogy changes nothing. The original dog is not in the house, he’s fucking off somewhere else. The bear is actually here, trying to come in, and you’re proposing we use him to defend against a dog that may or may not return. Ill take my chances with the dog.
Hey man, this thing called the fediverse is based around subscribing to the communities you want to and seeing content from those. You're screwing over the people who want content from both when you could just, not go out of your way to subscribe to threads communities. Problem solved.
Well this is why it was a piss poor analogy to begin with. Because the real, non-analogous, facts of the situation mean that the bear, the original dog, and the cloned chihuahua are all only kept alive by the same thing, users and their content.
And again, let's back up for a moment and point out that that's still not an argument based on any plausible reality. It's just fear of the unknown. You have yet to articulate any technical ways that method could kill the fediverse, but are just scared of some random X that Meta might do to steal the half dozen mastodon users away.
Dunno about the other posts, but this article talks about how Google killed XMPP, which is extremely relevant to what could happen to ActivityPub if Meta gets its way.
https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
Yes, everyone brings up that same blog post, and it's nonsense. Google Talk outcompeted Jabber/XMPP based messenger by providing a better user experience and it would have done that regardless of whether or not they ever supported XMPP.
Thus, it's entirely logical for us to expect that Meta outcompetes ActivityPub by "offering a better user experience". You know, despite the whole point of the fediverse being cooperation and coexistence, not competition