Fediverse

Defederation is about what an instance allows in, not what an instance allows out. Defederation stops you seeing the defederated instance's content, but it does not stop them seeing your instance's content.

Threads poses some danger to the fediverse, in particular the portion of it centered around microblogging (mostly Mastodon, but also Pleroma, parts of /kbin, etc.), but very little risk to the threadiverse.

The worst thing about the fediverse is all the fondue, but you don't have to eat it.

Emphasis from the original post.

This is a detailed summary, thank you for linking.

I have also read some other POVs here; my fears are not totally allayed and I still think Meta is only engaing with Activity Pub to prevent new, potential competitors arising from it.

I hope the OP is right about it being very little risk to the Threadiverse. The good news is that Threads is focused enitrely on microblogging and not the Threadiverse. Perhaps that means Kbin and Lemmy users will be able to sit on the sidelines and see how it plays out for a bit, idk. Mastodon users will be seeing the most change.

Either way, I remain a skeptic.

fediverse is considered safe place for minorities

Yep, the Reddit metaphor really backfired. If Reddit joined the fediverse I would happily consume their content. It would actually be a wonderful compromise where reddit wouldn’t have to provide direct app support and instead just publish out via ActivityPub and people could build third party clients through that.

I left Twitter because they killed Tweetbot and I left Reddit because they killed Apollo. I genuinely hate the experience of those sites with their native apps, and I use these kinds of services almost exclusively on my phone.

While I also hate Elon Musk and Spez, I strongly dislike most tech CEOs so while a motivator, it wasn’t the biggest factor for me. It’s important to remember we’re not all here for the same reason, and user-level instance blocking is the real solution here.

You don’t like some fediverse member? Then block them at the user level and move on, or start your own server and block them there. Don’t force everyone else on your server to not even have the option just for you.

I came to the Threadiverse because Reddit was closing its APIs and building the walls higher around its garden. I will be supremely disappointed if the Threadiverse collectively turns around and does the same thing.

So instances on the fediverse have some obligation to let entities who (A) will control 99% of the content, against our values of a decentralized, more evenly distributed fediverse; (B) have zero interest in an open fediverse; and (C) have all the incentive in the world to prevent its growth and get more people on their own platform to ensure profit? As usually hesitant as I am about preemptive defederation, if the fediverse is to preserve its values of openness and ensure its growth, it can't let in for-profit corporations that will control most of the activity and that go directly against those values of openness we care about so much. Just as tolerance doesn't mean letting in those who are intolerant, an unwalled fediverse can and should put its guards up against those who want to take everything for themselves.

it gives Meta no incentive to do things right

Meta already has zero incentive to do things right. In fact, they have negative incentive, as people being on Mastodon or Kbin instead of Threads actively harms them. You will never see Mark Zuckerberg suggest that people spread out to other instances so that no one gains too much control, but you will see him try to get as many people from the other instances on Threads as possible. We are talking about making our activity dependent on a for-profit tech corporation. If we were way larger so that Threads wouldn't control such a massive portion of activity, I wouldn't be as concerned, but as things stand now, we're letting our content pool be dominated by a company that has interests in direct opposition with ours. I can't see a scenario where any of this ends well.

what makes this time special that facebook wont cause problem

facebook already habe no incentive to do things right

Thanks for the alternate perspective! However, it doesn't really alleviate my concerns much:

Firstly, the claim "Nearly everyone here came from Reddit's API fiasco." isn't necessarily true, as the fediverse consists of more than Lemmy and the threads section on Kbin. Threads primarily concerns microblogging, which includes platforms like Mastodon, Misskey, Firefish, Friendica, and Kbin. Even so, you could say that all of these people came from similar situations — they all could've chose Twitter or what have you and instead chose the smaller platforms on the fediverse. But does that really mean that they'll stay here? This whole situation is showing that people are desperate for activity, even if that activity means relying on a corporation with interests that go against ours. People have already left following drops in activity — during Ernest's hiatus, the number of active Kbin users plummeted (yes, it was always going to down after the initial rise from the Reddit migration, but Kbin went down a lot, especially compared to Lemmy) and hasn't recovered. Those people, who have tried it and said, "Yeah, this isn't really working," are really hard to get back.

Now, imagine if everyone here got used to the large amount of microblog content provided by Threads, interacted with it a bunch, followed a bunch of Threads accounts, etc. like people are expressing plans to do. If Threads quits federating, thereby making all of that content and connection inaccessible to the rest of the fediverse, do you think people will stick around after that much of an activity drop? No, tons of people are going to follow the 99% of activity and flock to Threads, leaving the open fediverse in a position worse than right now. If you want to give Meta the chance to kill the fediverse's chance of growing to become a legitimate competitor, this is how you do it.

What you say about people having choice is true. If people want to access the fediverse through Threads, that is absolutely their choice. However, another beauty of ActivityPub is that we have the choice over whether we accept interaction with Threads or not. We don't have to become dependent on Meta to carry the fediverse — we can shut them out immediately and grow slowly but surely. If someone wants to join Threads, we aren't under any obligation to show them our content. Instead, saying, "Hey, if you want interaction with us, head over to something that cares about an open fediverse like a Mastodon or Kbin instance," is going to be much better for us long-term.

I don't think its right to view ActivityPub as competition to mainstream social media networks,
No matter how we view it, Meta views ActivityPub as competition to Threads and rightfully so. The values we currently hold on the fediverse — transparency from moderators & developers, no one instance having control, people having lots of choice, etc. — are values that directly go against Meta's profit whether they join ActivityPub or not. It is in Meta's best interest to pull as many users from here as possible and to nip the fediverse in the bud before it grows. Zuckerberg is not here to play nice, and I can't fathom how anyone would believe so. He does not care about a decentralized, open fediverse. He wants to get as many people on his platform as possible and to make potential competitors less viable, and this is how he can do it.

Kbin will become an also-ran within the fediverse, because most users will want to use tools that allow them to interact with the most people.

I'm not sure this holds. Surely if it was the primary factor in deciding which social media everyone chose, Kbin would already be dead at the hands of Twitter? Federation doesn't really change that argument if it's only about interacting with the most people.

That said I do agree that we need enough instances to defederate from Threads for this to work. If Threads overwhelms every other instance with volume and kills them, Kbin is alone and not really better off for having defederated. But as a pretty big instance, Kbin doing this is a major part of ensuring that the fediverse does not just become a collection of quirky alternative interfaces for Threads.

as if Threads isn't part of the fediverse in the second breath.

If Threads puts out so much more content as to effectively make other federated entities irrelevant, the character of the Fediverse changes such that it is no longer what it is today. Federation is meaningless if 99.9% of content comes from one place. Kbin would wind up as effectively just a weird third party interface for threads in that situation.

Let's not do "separate but equal" with social media, please. It's silly.

Is it meaningfully different to any other instance of defederation? Many of which I would say are generally beneficial to Kbin.

This may be an issue of poor wording on my part. The idea I'm trying to get across is that if Kbin, Mastodon, & other microblog platforms that are currently on the fediverse don't defederate from Threads, the users on those platforms will become dependent on Meta for activity. If Meta then leaves the fediverse, activity will drop down to what we have now, only with people used to the activity brought by Threads and having all of the connections they made with Threads accounts. This will pull tons of people from Kbin, Mastodon, etc. and essentially kill the open fediverse with very little hope of it growing again.

And to be clear, Meta has tons of incentive to do this. Meta is a profit-driven company. They want as many people as possible on their platforms, not on Mastodon or on Kbin or on Firefish or on Misskey. The open, widely distributed fediverse that we strive for goes against Meta's motives. Just as they'd have everyone on the Metaverse if he could, Zuckerberg will absolutely pull people from Kbin onto Threads if he gets the chance, and he will get that chance if we decide to put the content pool in the hands of Meta for the sake of trying to get activity as quickly as possible.

I see what you’re saying, but I really don’t see what Meta stands to gain in the long run from an open fediverse. It just doesn’t seem compatible with their business model to allow users who aren’t on their platform to interact with content created on their platform. They need data so they can sell it to advertisers, and I don’t see how that works when your users can just jump to another instance with no advertisments and access all the same content.

What do you think Meta stands to gain from Activity Pub, and why wouldn’t they just make their own closed protocol? (I am asking in good faith, because I do not really know.)

I feel the post doesn't really address my concerns.

Really? You think Threads will take over and rule Mastodon? Threads is its own platform, users on the fediverse can still join Mastodon #servers of their choice and leave. I expect we'l see plenty of anti #threads Mastodon servers pop up. If Threads were to somehow get an influence in Mastodon, just switch to #lemmy switch to #pixelfed switch to #firefish So many choices.

This seems to not really understand the risk Threads poses. Threads is its own platform, yes, but it will dominate the visible content of any instance that federates with it. It's very dangerous to depend on a massive, profit-driven corporation for activity on the fediverse, as the things we value on the fediverse (decentralization, transparency, even distribution of content between instances, etc.) go against the corporation's motives. Meta does not stand to benefit from any of the things we value, and most of the Threads userbase (i.e. casual Instagram users) probably won't notice or care about federation. Meta does benefit if everyone depends on them for content, as then they can pull people to Threads just by defederating. People will choose to go to Threads where the amount of activity is what they're used to over staying on their Mastodon instance after activity has plummeted and they can't see most of the people they follow.

This is a big one. Meta might capture the mainstrean fediverse. Lets just be real the average regular internet user wasn't going to join Mastodon in the first place. Not that they wouldn't want to it just isn't on their list next to #facebook #instagram #tiktok #youtube #discord or even #twitter . Actually I take what Meta is doing as a compliment to the fediverse. Remember Twitter at one time under #elon #elonmusk banned the talk of Mastodon or something like that. Threads might not have our interests at heart but they are already mainstream so why should they not allow their users be federated with us?

Yes, there are definitely a lot of people that the fediverse is just never going to appeal to. But of those who are interested in the fediverse, more will be inclined to join Threads due to it having most of the content & just requiring an Instagram login. There is a pool of people out there who will try out the fediverse if they're introduced to it — that's how we all got here — and if people can interact with the big Mastodon, Kbin, etc. instances from Threads, many will choose to do that when they wouldn't have otherwise.

is mainstream influence good