52
submitted 1 year ago by dartos@reddthat.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

I get meta evil, but aren’t we just blocking out any users from accessing the wider fediverse?

top 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Rottcodd@lemmy.ninja 134 points 1 year ago

No - they're blocking out any users from accessing the wider fediverse through threads.

They're entirely welcome to access the fediverse through any of the countless instances that are not owned by grotesquely destructive megacorporations.

[-] dartos@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago

If you’re in the know, sure, but if the fediverse interacts with threads we could expose literally billions of people to the larger fediverse.

Maybe while the fediverse is still getting it’s legs defederating is the move, but I mean literally billions of people being made aware of the fediverse would be amazing.

[-] Rottcodd@lemmy.ninja 4 points 1 year ago

i have never once in all my years seen one single thing made better by being discovered by the masses.

[-] Sigmatics@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

It's not making anyone aware. For all I know, Meta probably wouldn't even show the source instance, just abuse the content

Embrace, extend, extinguish

Meta does not like the fediverse and they will do anything to destroy it

[-] Crankpork@beehaw.org 97 points 1 year ago

Threads is currently in the first stage of EEE: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Best to stop it now before it goes too far.

From Wikipedia:

"Embrace, extend, and extinguish" (EEE), also known as "embrace, extend, and exterminate", is a phrase that the U.S. Department of Justice found that was used internally by Microsoft to describe its strategy for entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences in order to strongly disadvantage its competitors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish

[-] Steinsprut@szmer.info 74 points 1 year ago

Couple reasons actually

  • Meta wants to scrap every bit of data, doesn't matter if it's on Threads or networks federated with it

  • They just want a free usercount boost for start, and will remove ActivityPub integration when they feel Threads can go on alone

  • It's all a classic case of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish

[-] Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me 35 points 1 year ago

and will remove ActivityPub integration when they feel Threads can go on alone

I suspect it's even worse than that: they'll make it one-way only. So from Threads you can follow and interact with Mastodon users, but you won't be able to follow and interact with Threads users.

That way, they can position themselves as the entrypoint to the fediverse without contributing anything back, and lure everyone into Threads. Especially with the ties to Instagram accounts: easiest sign up for the fediverse because lots of people already have Instagram accounts.

Normies will only care about being able to follow external users, not the other way around. They'll be like "well just make a Threads account, that way you get everything".

[-] Jar2Eau@lemmy.fmhy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

I was talking about that on Mastodon but what prevent them to scrap on the fediverse when every thing is basically public (except private profile, etc). They could already be scraping data without even being in the fediverse.

[-] yetAnotherUser@feddit.de 17 points 1 year ago

It's blatantly illegal and Facebook/Meta has probably had enough of EU fines already.

Also, see this article from 2 days ago

Tl;dr:

The case centred on a challenge by Meta after the German cartel office in 2019 ordered the social media giant to stop collecting users' data without their consent, calling the practice an abuse of market power.

[-] jecxjo@midwest.social 16 points 1 year ago

The difference is that by defederating the only connection they can make is really just a facade. Users could see our posts but not reply or boost or favorite them. It would be like living with ghosts who cant see or interact with you. Makes for a crap experience.

And it also means that Meta can start sending you DMs or tagging mastodon users to push their ads or agenda. Yeah they can see your data but they can't interact with you.

[-] dartos@reddthat.com 4 points 1 year ago

Can’t they just scrape the data anyway?

[-] throws_lemy@lemmy.nz 24 points 1 year ago

https://infosec.pub/post/400702

and..

YSK : Meta is a threat to the privacy of fediverse users, if there are fediverse instances that remain federated with Meta.

Ross Schulman, senior fellow for decentralization at digital rights nonprofit the Electronic Frontier Foundation, notes that if Threads emerges as a massive player in the fediverse, there could be concerns about what he calls “social graph slurping." Meta will know who all of its users interact with and follow within Threads, and it will also be able to see who its users follow in the broader fediverse. And if Threads builds up anywhere near the reach of other Meta platforms, just this little slice of life would give the company a fairly expansive view of interactions beyond its borders.

https://www.wired.com/story/meta-threads-privacy-decentralization/

[-] dartos@reddthat.com -1 points 1 year ago

That infosec post up some good points.

The issue I see is that defederating them doesn’t resolve any of the issues they pointed out. Meta is still able to see most information in the fediverse, their built in user base is so large, that it makes the fediverse look totally empty by comparison. I don’t think we realistically prevent much disinformation by walking them off (though we do prevent some)

I just think it’s such a missed opportunity to grow the fediverse. Like now we’re 100% certain that threads users won’t take part in the larger lemmy communities at all.

EEE is a real thing, but it’s a balance act. You can be embraced and extended without being extinguished as long as you do it carefully (I mean look at some of the open source projects of the past decade. Typescript, bucklescript, react, electron and even companies like GitHub, which M$ owns, but hasn’t been mucking up too badly)

Maybe defederating for now is the right move, so the fediverse has time to grow into its own, but I don’t think “meta evil” is a good enough reason to just block out potentially billions of potential fediverse participants is all.

[-] CaptObvious@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I disagree. I think Facebook=Evil is all the reason we need to keep them at a safe distance. Let's observe them for a few years. If they behave (spoiler: They won't; see Cambridge Analytica, right-wing disinformation, Rohingya genocide, etc), then we consider federating with them.

[-] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

Letting them be part enables their abuse. Not let them join, protect the fediverse and let's it grow slowly. If you focus on being big quickly, maybe you are right, but if you want to maintain and grow the fediverse for a long time... You are almost certainly wrong.

[-] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Facebook can bootstrap their product with federated content made by users who are in the fediverse because they don’t want to support a company like Facebook. By not defederating, you would be helping Facebook every time you post a comment or make a post because you would be giving Facebook free content to further their for-profit goals.

Edit: they will also be taking fediverse content and displaying it next to ads.

[-] dartos@reddthat.com 6 points 1 year ago

See that’s a good point. Facebook is going to get fediverse data regardless of defederating them. Most of this stuff is public anyway.

But displaying fediverse content next to ads w/o consent is kinda gross

[-] iorale@lemmy.fmhy.ml 15 points 1 year ago

Users are free to download Threads and go lick zucc's balls if they so desire, instances are just protecting themselves and the responsability that comes with it.

It's getting tired reading so many zucc apologist, I swear they are bots or accounts created for that purpose

[-] stewie3128@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

I think ActivityPub's license should prohibit financially profiting from the platform.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago

At this point the cat is kind of out of the bag though.

[-] mvirts@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

You can change your license if you hold copyright

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Really? So Linus Torvalds could make Linux proprietary all the sudden? I'm skeptical. And it's going to vary by jurisdiction too.

[-] dartos@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago

Well yeah he could, but he can’t retroactively apply that license change, so the Linux foundation would just keep rolling on with their own fork.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

Even if you're right, wouldn't the same thing apply to the implementation in Threads?

[-] dartos@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

I was talking about Linux specifically because it’s under the GPL license. Threads isn’t open source at all afaik, so it doesn’t really apply

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

The implementation of ActivityPub in Threads, I mean.

[-] dartos@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

I don’t think it does. ActivityPub is just a specification. The spec itself is under a very permissive license https://www.w3.org/copyright/software-license-2015/

[-] tko@tkohhh.social 3 points 1 year ago

Is threads Mastadon? or Lemmy? or something else? How does it interact with lemmy? And how can I block it on my server?

[-] esty@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Threads is a microblogging platform similar in idea to mastodon, and uses the same activitypub protocol

You can block threads.net (and there's a list on GitHub of every meta domain, if you want to be extreme)

Edit with link to list of all meta domains

[-] NeoLikesLemmy@lemmy.fmhy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

every meta domain, if you want to be extreme

I wouldn't call that extreme, because it's the only option that works.

[-] blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk 1 points 1 year ago
[-] esty@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago
[-] blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk 3 points 1 year ago

Thank you. Just a couple of domains then!

[-] AES@lemmy.ronsmans.eu 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah no biggie, gonna type them by hand.

[-] dartos@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago

Honestly it doesn’t even matter. If meta really cared about fediverse data, they’d set up their own unnamed server, make a bot account that just follows and subscribes to as much as it can. Nobody would know to block it, it’d just look like another user.

[-] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

It is not about data. It is about EEE. They cannot EEE it without showing their hands.

We would be arguably better off educating and convincing these users that they would be better off purely in the fediverse. But good luck with that because I haven't had any success with it.

[-] Mandy@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

Idk if this is a dumb question but. With like 10 million usres already, why would they even need the rest of the fediverse?

[-] NightOwl@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

If I wanted a centralized space of as many users as possible then I wouldn't be on the fediverse and be on reddit, Facebook, tiktok, etc.

I'm here because I want to sever my connection to those type of corporate run platforms as much as possible, and being federated with them defeats the purpose of being here for me. Why wouldn't I then just use those sites directly instead of putting up with the growing pains of the fediverse and fragmentation of communities?

[-] rarely@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Meta evil and people I think may not understand that meta will read/mine your public fediverse activity if it wants to, regardless of federation status.

People may not know how sites block other search engine crawlers (scrapers like google) and it may surprise them realize that all that's done is adding a line to a text file that says "if you call yourself a xyz browser then you can't scrape" and hope that the crawler reads and obeys that request. We arent talking about iron clad defenses here. The same goes for defederating.

Defederating from facebook will remove the means for facebook to actually federate the way we are used to seeing on lemmy - we wont see their content, we can't react to their content, and at least at the beginning they wont see our content.

But if they wanted to, facebook could just consume the lemmyverse and show the top posts on facebook. The only thing that would stop them is a lawsuit. Even then, if they wanted to it would just come down to money - cost of a fine vs cost of losing facebookers to the fediverse.

Facebook needs to only emulate the fediverse as they have emulated the rest of the internet into facebook. Hell, if they wanted to they could just show friends the content their friends consumes on the fediverse and build public forums around that content. Kind of like how facebook (and reddit, etc) work.

Folks may want an option to completely wall-out facebook from ever observing any of their actions on the fediverse. Its a nice idea but it's not something that defederating brings. Public internet is public to all, unfederated, including facebook.

Of course we can request that facebook not scrape the fediverse and complain when they do, but I don't see that as having much momentum for change.

[-] dartos@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago

This is what I mean.

Meta is going to get public data one way or another. It’s not hard to scrape the fediverse normally.

Like all defederating them does is make the fediverse more closed off, not less

You can’t even really block scrapers without actually locking down a site. You can just ask nice bots (like googles crawler) to not index you.

[-] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

It is not about the data. It is about the users and communities. They can copy the content but a threads user couldn't really ask a fediverse user a question through threads. The interaction is why we are on social media. If threads is not part of the fediverse, it can't provide the users with the same interactions. the fediverse wants users on many different smaller servers. We need to get the user to move to such a server, if we want the fediverse to work.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2023
52 points (74.5% liked)

Asklemmy

43912 readers
855 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS