Is there any hope? Or is it inevitable that big corporations will take over what started as a way to escape big corporate platforms and to focus on real communities and discussions and replace it with a toxic shithole pumped full of ads?
Hopefully people will remember what Google did with XMPP.
Being aware of your instance admins stances and what they plan to do. Bit rich coming from my kbin account (no idea the stance), but I have two other accounts already on instances where I‘m certain the admins wouldn‘t sell out to corpos. So if kbin were to federate with Meta and their stuff invaded my feed, I would move to one of those as my primary account.
What I think is going to be important here to make this less of a pain for users who get very attached to their accounts, is some ability to export and import account data, comment history and so on. I personally don‘t care (deleted a 15 year Reddit account without a care too), but I want this to succeed and for that it would be important.
Once this influx has died down and the devs got some more room for requests, I hope they can give us this ability.
Now before anyone regales me again with “Why not give them a chance, companies are our friends” stuff, I‘m gonna link a few things to read for you instead of replying to me, cause I can‘t be bothered to argue with pro-corporate people anyway and won‘t respond:
https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
I’ll definitely be on an instance that’s not federated with Meta. Right now, I have accounts on sh.itjust.works, .world and .ee, but I’d drop any and all of them the moment I find out they’ll federate with them.
If a corporation aims to purchase an instance, all the other instances would let them know they will vote to defederate it as soon as the purchase is finalized. That ought to make them change course.
Or, they just won’t care
Maybe. But then the instance they purchase is sealed off from the rest of the federation and a large portion of the users jump ship.
That’s not how meta’s going to do it; they’ll start their own (with blackjack blah blah) that has better servers, better design, and other stuff real money can buy until theirs is the default. Then when they have the vast majority of users, they’ll start throwing their weight around and others will be pressured to comply with the ‘standard’ they set.
Other instances can always wall them out from the beginning. Sure, they might have better UI/servers, but if they’re never federated they’ve essentially just created another Facebook.
They want to create another Twitter.
I think instance admins do care
Maybe. But corporations won’t
Here’s the most interesting take I’ve found on this question.
https://www.timothychambers.net/2023/06/23/project-and-the.html
Good read. Onboarding and discoverability are the weakest part of the fediverse and need to be a high priority.
Apps should go as far as assigning new users randomly to a good general instance (vlemmy.net, lemmy.one, lemm.ee etc) if it means the user wouldn’t have to know about instances, and integrating lemmyverse.net’s functionality into lemmy would both go a long way for both I feel.
Apps assigning new users randomly to a good general instance (vlemmy.net, lemmy.one, lemm.ee etc) eithout requiring the user to know about instances,
This is a terrible idea, and the defederation of Beehaw is the exact reason why this is a terrible idea. Don’t get me wrong, with the attitude of the Beehaw admins I suspect that Beehaw will constantly be defederating from a lot of instances over the course of its existence, but this comes with the consequence of people suddenly being locked out of participating in their chosen communities because “you signed up on the wrong instance.”
Which is something nobody should have to experience.
That’s why it’s important to make sure they’re good general instances that aren’t defederating everything else. Beehaw seems to be an exception in this regard.
Beehaw’s essentially walling itself off from other instances, and I think the vast majority of users would rather stay on the other instances’ side rather than one that seems to be staying small on purpose.
Instance migration is already a highly requested feature, and is a thing in Mastodon already. That will fix most remaining concern about being locked out of communities when implemented.
I feel the massive onboarding advantage of users not requiring instance knowledge by doing this vastly outweighs the few users who might not find some communities they like, most of which have alternatives in other instances anyway. And they could always just make another account until instance migration is in lemmy.
Great article! I appreciate how it addresses the commonly raised reasons and points to a way forward.
I don’t see how they can really take over in a system that’s open source and anyone willing can create their own instance. If they start taking control of a large, established base and pisses that base off, they can just collectively make and move to a new instance, walling the previous one off from the federation by blocking it.
They’re supposedly in talks with activitypub, the backend of the entire fediverse. If meta can get what they want with activitypub, they’ll effectively have control over the entire fediverse. I don’t see that happening though because the fediverse was made in opposition of major social media sites. I see them trying to take control of the software like lemmy and kbin or if that fails trying to buy popular instances or just filling the fediverse with their existing users. Luckily if the first two fail the nature of the fediverse works in our favor and the instances that want to can just defederate.
ActivityPub is a W3C standard. I’m not sure how one can be “in talks” with a standard.
They can bribe their way into the standards commitee and then define their own standard in a way that they benefit while the rest suffers. So just like most web standards have been changed to benefit the large corporations instead of the users.
That’s like saying they’re “in talks with HTTP”. ActivityPub is a protocol. It’s an open source standard. That standard is currently under development by the World Wide Web Consortium. There is no “ActivityPub” for them to be in talks with.
I mean, I’d sell all you fuckers out for a billion dollars. So there’s a chance someone sells out somewhere along the line.
And I wouldn’t hold it against you. I’ve had friends work at Fb for as long as they could stomach
If they start taking control of a large, established base
We are not a large base. Lemmy+kbin have only a couple millions of users, and Mastodon 13 millions. Facebook is planing to migrate all Instagram accounts to P92 accounts. That means billions of users, flooding the whole fediverse.
They should make an instance, it would help the general public discover the fediverse. Most people I talk to at the bar don’t know about the fediverse, I’ve explained it so many times, some people show interest, some people don’t see the point, or how it’s a big deal. I probably just come off as a total geek.
Once meta opens up a channel to the fediverse, people will start to stumble upon the different instances, decide they are done with meta, and move on from meta.
There are some billionaires out there who are watching whats happening, they are noticing the patterns, the trends, what people want, and what people dont want.
All it takes is one clever billionaire, who realizes they have enough money to create the next best platform and be able to fund it by other means.
We are at the point where bots can generate ad revenue, so if we just abandon the old websites to bots, they become bot-towns that generate revenue, and that revenue goes towards funding ad free servers in the fediverse.
This may be what just happens.
unbridled aggression
Class action against activitypub (or whoever has the final say of whether they’re let in or not) if they allow Meta into the fediverse. They are putting all of our data and privacy at risk by doing so.
That’s like calling on people to sue the W3C for “letting” Meta use http.
It doesn’t work that way.
The only class action we can and should take is to defederate.
ActivityPub is from W3C and is an open protocol for anyone to use. No one to target there legally speaking. It’s up to the consumers of the protocol to reject and defederate.
I don’t have an issue with social media companies entering the Fediverse, at least on the surface, because it’s ultimately more users and it’s in line with the ideas of free exchange of information and content. My problem with it comes in when they try to buy instances, communities, or what have you. No one should have a monopoly on the Fediverse, and it shouldn’t be pay to win.
So, my answer is this: because no one can stop anyone from making their own instances, users decide whether to defederate their instances from Meta’s, or Twitter’s, or anyone else’s. Join an instance that doesn’t federate with Meta, or start your own if you have the know-how. Just like anywhere else on the internet, you don’t have to interact with content you don’t want to interact with.
Seems simple enough to me.
Meta: Do what we want or we’ll defederate you!
Everyone: Fuck off
Meta: Surprised pikachu
Not only that because they are federated there will be a much higher traffic, which will come with higher cost. So a possible playbook Meta could follow is say they’d help cover the cost from their user base. Then it becomes the equivalence of being bribed. You don’t do what they want they stop giving you the money and because of the growth that comes with Meta, an instance that federate with them could suddenly find themselves struggling to maintain the instance.
I’d have to imagine that Meta would be locked within their own little bubble. I find it hard to believe that many of the current instances out there wouldn’t immediately opt to defederate from Meta out of principle. I don’t think it’d be difficult to find a community that’s blocked all interaction with Meta.
Meta plans to fedi with activitypub so I doubt that they’re trying to be a closed island. They are probably trying to come into this space to disrupt and destroy. All of fedi needs to cut them out right away.
.
the phrase is embrace, extend, extinguish, and Microsoft has been doing it for years
So has facebook:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Meta_Platforms
AT&T is the best known example. They supressed innovation for decades, buying up or squashing anything that posed a threat to their monopoly. A phone bought in 1920 wasn’t that different to a phone used in 1980. Judging by what happened when their monopoly was abolished, if it hadn’t been for AT&T we’d have had the internet in 1960.
People have no clue about how detrimental these (quasi-)monopolies are for technogical innovation.
Companies like facebook, microsoft and google are actively preventing innovation not furthering it. They’ve become so big, they no longer have a vested interest in things changing too much, so they squash anything new.
Corporate vampires, undermining democracy, hurting the planet, and actively hindering progress. Fuck 'em.
Embrace, extend, extinguish is a very particular kind of monopolistic behavior. you’re just listing people buying out their competitors. which to be clear, is also bad.
Embrace, extend, extinguish is when you have an open standard, which a company nominally embraces, and then adds unique features to their version that only interoperates with those using their product. Apple and SMS is a current example, since their reactions only work on iPhone. the Wikipedia article has plenty of examples from Microsoft. it’s also quite likely that it’s exactly what Facebook plans to do with activitypub.
if it hadn’t been for AT&T we’d have had the internet in 1960.
There is no world in which the DoD declassifies packet switching, invented in the late 60s, and opens that up into the world. This work was essential to making ARPANET, which was the first interconnected network that we can call useful internet, which was only open to the few academics and military institutions that worked on what was later known as DARPA projects. There is no putting this on Ma Bell as a reason for us not having internet in the 60s.
If you invite them in, they will send you advertising
Jesus Christ 🤦♂️
The entire point of federation is you can’t.
Go post your uneducated meta circle jerk hate back on Reddit.
Don’t be a dick. Seriously, dude posted in Not Stupid Questions and you immediately tell him how stupid his question is.
Most of the good content I see is from here.
I think the real threat comes from the larger user base they’ll likely bring. Because they’ll certainly favor their own instance’s communities, which means those communities could then grow to the point that they have enough leverage to do the bad things.
The main strategy I’ve seen is to form a pact against federating with them. I hope it works.
You can’t keep them out, but you can choose not to Federate with them. They can’t take over. That’s the point of having independent federated servers.
The Mastodon instance I’m on has blocked all known Meta IPs as a preventative measure. So I imagine some admins will federate and some won’t, and users will be free to join the instance that they wish to.
They have the right to use the open protocol, just as anybody else to build their own instance. Trying to keep Facebook out only through banning of known instances/IP addresses is a losing battle of whack-a-mole.
If you really want to stop them from EEE, make a pact to refuse to federate with any instance software stack without the AGPL-3.0 license instead, no Apache, no MIT, not even regular GPL, so they simply can’t do the “Extend” bit at all.
What are those licences that you list? Please explain like I’m a non-IT.
Now Lemmy Explain: These are all open-source licenses; however, their provisions are different from each other. For this, I assume you understand what compilation is.
- MIT and Apache are “Do whatever you want with my code, just give credit with this license file”, but Apache is a bit more detailed and has a bit more on patent clause.
- GPL can be summarized into 2 provisions: “You have to share the source code alongside compiled executables” (.exe for windows), and “if your executables compile with GPL code, then the rest of the code that compiles also has to be GPL licensed” (Which is why some call it a viral license)
- However, the loophole with GPL code is that if you are running anything with GPL code running on a server, you are not distributing the executable if you are only accessing it through a web page, so you don’t have to share the source code, and AGPL closes that loophole by saying “You still have to share the source code for AGPL licensed programs if you are using it as a service”
Companies hate GPL code since they can’t legally keep modified software close sourced, which means that Facebook won’t be able to develop proprietary extensions for AGPL licensed software like Lemmy or Mastodon.
Would that solve the bullshit RH is currently pulling with RHEL?
No. RH is following the GPL: They send you the source code when you buy RHEL, but if you share that source code, then Red Hat will just refuse to sell you future versions of RHEL. What they are doing is scummy but allowed under GPL.
