I really want to nip threads in the bud. Besides blocking threads.net itself, defederate from any instances that do not. This is blatantly an EEE strategy and a united front is the only way to save what have been accomplished. Here is how Indivudals can do it on mastodont as an example to follow. https://hachyderm.io/@crowgirl/110663465238573628 Edit found this , https://fedipact.online/ please sign.
I just blocked them on Mastodon. Thanks!
I’m all for blocking threads on instances, BUT
defederating with OTHER instances just because they haven’t blocked threads is gonna create a massive split in this community, possibly could kill it. big no 👎
Absolutely not! Do that and you’ll skip right to the “Extinguish” part in EEE.
The biggest advantage of the Fediverse is the decentralized moderation. People will disagree on what to do with threads ATM. This comment section is proof on the lack of consensus of this.
Besides, this isn’t a black and white issue. Some mods may blacklist some accounts on threads and allow others. Or choose to do a whitelist system and only allow certain accounts. There’s many compromises that can be made in this area. But forcing one solution for this is harmful and runs counter to the spirit of the fediverse.
At this rate we’ll extinguish ourselves before Meta even gets to the third E.
What if you are on Meta’s payroll and want to start this so the Fediverse destroys itself from within? Gotya, sucky Zucc! Nice try. /s
For real, can’t this Meta train derail next to the Titanic already? Joining an open communication standard platform and then complain the open standard communicates with outside. I really think you have been in the wrong place from the very beginning.
Jesus christ this is turning into virtue signalling brain rot
deleted by creator
@noodles @ModdedPhones Currently #threads does not make use of ActivityPub. Apparently there was not enough time to implement it in time for its scheduled release. That much said, I have put a preemptive block on threads.net so when it does go live, I won’t forget.
I support blocking Facebook but not other instances.
threads will never federate.
@JoYo @ModdedPhones Pretty much all evidence points to the contrary
I must genuinely ask? What does this accomplish, a lot of instances being split apart because one federates with meta and the other doesnt, its not like the meta posts are gonna make it to your instance if you defederate meta, so you are really just splitting the community over nothing. Privacy wise, activity pub is public, by design, so they can just already pull all the information it exposes, and likely do. And finally? How does this stop EEE?
deleted by creator
Exactly.
Its not being Chicken Licking and freaking out that the sky is falling but we certainly dont need to play our hand this early in the game.
We know Meta is not a good faith actor. We know they will try to subsume or extinguish the fediverse if they cant control it but we dont need to go pissing our knickers and do the work for them.
And this is how you gut the Fediverse… Don’t even give people the option to run their own single-user instance to avoid the drama. Defederate them, too. Splinter everything into oblivion.
EDIT: Seriously. As someone who isn’t a hardcore militant FOSS federation activist, this is the kind of stuff that makes me want to throw up my hands and say, “Screw it. I guess I’ll go sign up at Threads.”
This isn’t FOSS behavior, this is just liberal virtue signaling behavior. I was hoping this behavior stayed on Mastodon where I purged a lot of it. Was really hoping that plague wouldn’t hit Lemmy.
liberal virtue signaling
you might like parler more, go check it out…
Wait until you realize that liberal does not mean left wing. Liberalism is a right wing ideology.
wait until you realize (if ever) that liberalism has nothing to do with left/right scale…
you can start here: https://www.politicalcompass.org/
I’ve had multiple conversations about liberalism and come to realize there’s a multitude of definitions none of which make complete sense. A left-wing definition might be “liberal democratic capitalism” like most of Europe is, with neoliberal being a more right-wing version of that like the US. A right-winger might use liberal to mean someone culturally progressive. Sometimes liberal is used to mean someone who wants a smaller government, sometimes it is confused with libertarianism (which was originally left-wing but co-opted by free market capitalists).
I don’t think the term “liberal” is useful anymore, it’s mostly thrown around towards people you perceive to be the status quo.
not understanding or trying to intentionaly appropriate words (similar mechanism to discussed eee) and change their meaning is indeed a thing, but these are still a facts:
- liberal is not a term on left/right scale.
- person using phrase “liberal virtue signaling” is still sending pretty clear message about himself
I would agree with you if threads didn’t choose to avoid market with decent consumer protection laws, EU.
They aren’t launching at EU for a reason, and that’s good enough for me to take a stance against them.
Won’t they have to comply with at least some EU laws in order to become federated? If EU residents can interact with Threads via another instance, they’ll still be on the hook for all of that mirrored data.
It could also be that the instances federating with Threads are on the hook, because they’re giving data on EU residents to a third party
Just because they haven’t launched in the EU yet doesn’t mean they won’t. They were clearly rushing to get this out the door. I’d be absolutely shocked if they don’t go to the EU since Facebook and Instagram are there already.
Facebook is in a lot of shit with EU right now because of GDPR non compliance. They are at a risk of just getting flat out booted from here if they don’t fix their shit.
That combined with the upcoming Digital Markets Act means they might not get a chance to launch here at all
Then go ahead to threads tbh, too many times now has some amazing things on the internet been absolutely fucking ruined by a company or by it becoming a business.
Enough with companies being involved with everything.
EDIT: Seriously. As someone who isn’t a hardcore militant FOSS federation activist, this is the kind of stuff that makes me want to throw up my hands and say, “Screw it. I guess I’ll go sign up at Threads.”
Nobody is stopping you
Yes, I know… But there’s no need for Meta to extinguish Mastodon if we do it ourselves?
taking a stance is not a bad thing.
On the other end, there’s also the Executive Monkey aspect.
At some point, fighting every battle has a toll. See the decline in the population’s mental health as activism increases.
As an apathetic Gen-X’er, I just acknowledge that I’ll never make it so everything is exactly the way I want it to be. Some stuff just sucks. And so do I.
On the other end, there’s also the Executive Monkey aspect.
ok, i now really want to tie joseph brady into electric chair and press the lever.
At some point, fighting every battle has a toll.
may be, but since consequences of losing the battle are usually bigger than little bit of stress, that is really not a reason to wave the white flag.
As an apathetic Gen-X’er, I just acknowledge that I’ll never make it so everything is exactly the way I want it to be. Some stuff just sucks. And so do I.
and so you are trying to convince others to join you in your apathy. got it.
You seem to be stretching the definition of the “paradox of tolerance” in new and amazing ways. How exactly does the “paradox of tolerance” relate to defederating from instances that haven’t explicitly blocked Threads?
How exactly does the “paradox of tolerance” relate to defederating from instances that haven’t explicitly blocked Threads?
it applies to federation of single units in same way as it applies to single unit. if we decide this is a direction we want to take, then everyone has to think about which side of the imaginary barricade they want to stand on.
This doesn’t seem applicable - how is meta being intolerant (or the people federating with meta)? Banning instances because they didn’t ban a third party instance isn’t following the paradox of tolerance.
Sorry if I’m missing something, are you saying meta should be banned because they have bad moderation, tons of bigots, or something like that?
are you saying meta should be banned because they have bad moderation, tons of bigots, or something like that?
i am saying they should be banned because their ultimate goal is to Embrace, extend and exterminate and if you are going to tolerate it, you’ll lose
That’s just arguing that companies shouldn’t be allowed on decentralized networks like the internet, which IMO isn’t realistic, but that’s of course okay if that’s your opinion.
Here are my full thoughts if you want to provide counterpoints: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/726305
That’s just arguing that companies shouldn’t be allowed on decentralized networks like the internet,
no, that’s not, you should read better
which IMO isn’t realistic
oh wait, you didn’t read wrong, you tried to misinterpret what i said on purpose, right?
I guess everyone else replying to you doesn’t get what you are saying.
They aren’t threatening to leave like it matters. They are expressing concern that preemptively defederating with anyone that hasn’t blocked Meta/Facebook/Threads/Insert_Bad_Actor_Here is a horrible idea.
No one is saying that we shouldn’t defederate with Meta. We are saying not to make the mistake of fracturing a community that, in internet terms, is in its infancy.
I’m willing to bet most people here don’t like being told that they can’t do something for arbitrary reasons. So why would you care what another instance is doing? If you don’t like your instance, move. If you don’t like another instance personally, block them.
Defederation is a powerful tool when necessary. It can block toxic communities, stop raids, and remove spam centers. But defederating by association is a drastic step.
Edit: And the comment of
this is the kind of stuff that makes me … say “Screw it. … I guess I’ll sign up at Threads” Has no one responding seen all the posts by people confused about Lemmy as is?
You know how you kill Lemmy, fracture it and make it so difficult to find/understand that the general populace, not early adopters, not techies, normal people give up.
So if you want this content you have to go here, but they won’t talk to this other place, so if you want that stuff you should get another account and go over here… oh and these guys won’t talk to anyone so you will need another account for them.
And where will they go? Maybe a place run by a company that they already use. With a shiny new app… AND 30 MILLION PEOPLE that already have it.
Congratulations, in your attempt to kill Meta you have just alienated the vast majority of potential users and sent them straight to that which you were trying to destroy.
“Insert_Bad_Actor” is so widely vague that it can apply anywhere to anyone (slippery slope, I know, but this entire discussion hinges on some application of the principle).
Two months ago the rallying cry for federation/fediverse was “YOU CAN CONTROL IT” which very quickly has morphed into “YOU CAN CONTROL IT AS LONG AS YOU FIT IN THIS PARTICULAR BOX.” A lot of this feels like it’s coming from a place of fear, which is not a great place to make informed and logical decisions from.
A lot of the discussion I’ve seen here and on Mastodon around Meta/Threads/federating with a corporate entity seems to be circling around three issues.
-
Privacy. There is an assumption that as soon as Meta gets it’s fingers into the metaverse pie they’ll hoover up everything they can. My question to anyone that thinks this is, “How do you know they don’t do it already?” Meta can very easily have a server setup somewhere to pull in ActivityPub information. IT’S THE ENTIRE POINT OF FEDERATION. You can’t stop them, other than to block the instance. So unless someone figures out that Meta is running a particular instance and then announces it so that admins can block it, it’s reasonable to assume it’s already happening. This just means what you post already isn’t private, and never should be assumed to be.
-
Ads. Somehow people think that Meta will abuse federation to sells ads to send out as posts. Which, if they do that, they will be quickly blocked and they’ve just ruined their new crop of eyeballs. On top of that, sending ads out into the void to end up next to god knows what content, on god knows what server, in front of god knows who, is not something that most ad buyers are going to spend money on. Any ad buyers want to know that they are getting value for their spend.
-
EEE, or Embrace Extend Extinguish. This is to me the most valid argument for keeping them at arm’s length. The basic premise is that these huge corps can spend the money up front to build on top of an open standard, add improvements that will be limited to only their version, then once they have the market share/cornered pull the rug out by either defederating and hurting the whole thing, or by locking users in to their “better” service. This has happened a number of times in the past, and Facebook has been guilty of it themselves.
Whatever happens with this in the future will be interesting to watch unfold, that’s for sure. But doing anything before the service even has the hooks to connect in and federate seem so premature to me.
You hit the nail on the head.
I purposefully went vague because this won’t be the last. There will always be decisions that need to be made. There will always be a new company looking for a payday.
And if we are going to say, don’t just ‘Defederate from Meta’, but also ‘Defederate with anyone who hasn’t defederated from Meta too!’ then we have one very steep and slippery slope indeed.
100% agreed on just about everything. I don’t think EEE is even a good argument (I’d love to entertain strong arguments otherwise!) - kerberos seems like the best related example, but that’s not even very applicable, and I don’t think XMPP even was subject to EEE (here’s a longer response on that: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/708874 )
-
Lots of upvotes here but also lots of unhappy replies… I agree with you and want to expand on some things I’ve come across (I’ve written much of this in chats with other people):
-
It’s not easy to “embrace extend extinguish” an open protocol (look at the Internet/ipv4/whatever example) - kerberos is the most compelling example imo, but that still barely applies imo. I have a response to the XMPP example here: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/708874
-
Who chooses social media based on principles? Not very many people, plus even fewer people understand the technology enough to understand those principles (did you know tons of info is already public on activitypub networks?)
-
I guarantee 99% of people replying to you negatively will hop on Twitter/Instagram/Whatsapp/Gmail/whatever and continue handing their info over to super-centralized social media. I have friends IRL and most of them use traditional social media, so hell yeah I want to be able to interact with them from my own fediverse instance (where some info at least is private)! It’s the best of all worlds, and maybe I can get some of the nerdier ones to join me
-
“We don’t want to grow the fediverse Like This” - that’s fine, but why defederate from instances that federate with threads.net (call this second tier/party defederation?)? That’s punishing/activism (which is fine, but should the entire fediverse be activist like this? Most people just want to balance chatting with friends against data privacy/FOSS) instead of just having an opinion - if you’re not federated with threads, then you won’t have threads users interacting with your community
-
I just don’t like there being a cabal of fediverse instances that enact any sort of “purity test.” I’m so far from a free speech absolutist, but if I want to federate with lemmygrad and exploding-heads (idk maybe I just get curious someday), what purpose does it serve for lemmy.world or whoever to defederates from me?
P.s. re the kerberos example - it’s pretty egregious (look it up), but I would love meta/blusky to expand the activityub protocol, it’s missing so much (and the lack of activitypub advancement is another argument against this being another instance of the XMPP embrace extend extinguish)
(I’m interested in expanding my opinion on this stuff, so I welcome constructive comments. I would especially like arguments for and against first tier defederation. Maybe even try to support the EEE argument, but I’ll be skeptical on that one)
-
I’m for blocking Threads. I’m not for blocking instances that support Threads. That’s ridiculous, you’d just split the community and make the Fediverse irrelevant.
I see only OP calling for defedding instances that don’t defed Meta. Fedipact https://fedipact.online/ makes no mention, never seen it on Mastodon. I think the flamewar should be toned down a little.
I’m all for individual users blocking Threads if they’d like to, but I think it’s a terrible idea for instance admins to make that decision for all of their users.
Personally, I don’t see why this is so controversial. I view it as a way to follow the celebs and organizations that would rather use threads, but from the comfort of Mastodon that is outside of Meta’s ecosystem.
ActivityPub and the Fediverse is designed to for natural selection to take place. So let it. The users that want to be part of the Fediverse are already here and won’t don’t leave based on what Meta does with Threads. Threads utilizing ActivityPub in the future justifies the means of the Fediverse more than anything else IMO. I despise Meta as much as the next person, but this is not the end of the Fediverse as we know it.
“natural selection” in this context is unregulated capitalism and ends in Meta owning you. No, don’t “let it.” Maintain boundaries between the free and open internet and that governed by corporate interests.
But that’s the risk taken when you create a protocol (ActivityPub) that anyone can tap into. You can’t create something that is open to everyone and then pitch a fit when entity you don’t like or agree decides to take advantage of it. Regardless of how big Threads get, it can’t supecede the ActivityPub protocol. If they decided to defederate down the road in attempts to extinguish the Fediverse, it won’t work, those users will still remain and Threads will go on it’s merry way. Meta can’t kill a W3C protocol.
You can actually pitch a fit when the entity poses a genuine existential crisis. What do you think Meta will do once they’re here? Give direct access to Facebook users. This will drown out the user base AND pull users away when certain features are introduced by them that just happen to not work well outside Threads. It is an EEE strategy in your face and you want to wait and see? Come on.
I don’t think defederating from any Instance which plays ball with Threads for that reason only is a good idea. I do think Instance owners should see the danger Threads poses and act accordingly.
It is completely inevitable that Meta will add Threads-exclusive functionality that is not compatible with ActivityPub, funnelling users into their own walled garden.
I agree, any fediverse servers that remain federated with Meta servers, they are helping Meta to collect your data.
Remember, the Threads app itself is a privacy nightmare.
You realize all the stuff you post is public, right?
Yeah, and I suppose how long you read a post is public too? I mean, meta can see that information, and you’re not hiding it offline or anything, so they should just be able to sell it too why not. And your search history. That’s… public too. Your personal contacts for your friends and family on your phone, thats wide open public information right. Also any health information you log in your phone. Public info.
Is everything human beings do public info? Should we make our houses out of glass while we’re at it, and record every human beings entire life on audio and video so that mega corporations can sell any information gathered?
deleted by creator
So, you’re going off for no reason about nothing, the commenter i was responding to was responding to a comment about meta’s new app and all the information it outright tells you it is harvesting and selling from you.
@BreakDecks @LadyAutumn W take
Is this just fear mongering roleplay at this point? They literally can’t get any of that from your fedi clients. That’s just straight up false. If you’re in their client then no shit lol, but we’re obviously not talking about that.
Thats what the person you were responding to was talking about yes.
This is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Most of the activity on any given instance or community comes from outside of the instance. If you start cutting off instances because they are sharing their own stuff with Meta, then you will also be negatively impacting your own communities since the amount of active users will go down.
Most users won’t react to something like this by joining your instance or an instance that you approve of (or, at least, currently approve of). They’ll either find another community on an instance they’re federated with or they’ll switch to another social media platform. The latter becomes more likely depending on how many instances end up on either “side” of the issue. Although most user accounts are relatively new, it’s still a pain to switch over to something else once you’ve gotten used to something.
The scale of defederation you propose, especially this early in the fediverse, would be enough to turn off a lot of folks from federation. If admins are just going to defederate from each other at the first sign of disagreement, that weakens my faith in the fediverse.
I absolutely believe that instances should not federate with meta’s stuff. The largest servers had enough issues when we were getting new users in the thousands. Meta will likely bring in users in the millions. However, it makes no difference to me if another instance federates with Meta.
