101

The free fediverses should emphasize networked communities (privacy.thenexus.today)

submitted 10 months ago by thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/fediverse@lemmy.world

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/7193618

The "free fediverses" are regions of the fediverse that reject Meta and surveillance capitalism. This post is part of a series looking at strategies to position the free fediverses as an alternative to Threads and "Meta's fediverses".

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Kierunkowy74@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago

Meta's fediverses probably also won't be able to compete with Threads on this. Threads plan to make federation opt-in is the right thing to do from a privacy and safety perspective, but also means that people in Meta's fediverses won't be able to communiate with most of the people on Threads. And Meta has the option of adding communication between Threads and the billions of people on other networks like Instagram (which already shares the same infrastructure), Facebook, and WhatsApp. Longer-term, it seems to me that this is likely to be a huge challenge for Meta's fediverses, but fediverse influencers supporting federating with Meta have various arguments why it doesn't matter.

Is it really Meta's fediverses, when communication between them and their alleged owner is fairly little and actively gatekept by their alleged owner?

[-] 0x1C3B00DA@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago

no just like federating with mastodon.social doesn't make your instance a part of the Gargron fediverse. Meta can't control non-Meta instances that federate with them

[-] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 10 months ago

Here's the definition I gave for term in the first article i the series:

"Meta's fediverses", federating with Meta to allow communications, potentially using services from Meta such as automated moderation or ad targeting, and potentially harvesting data on Meta's behalf.