this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023

75 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

1452 readers

45 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!

Open-ended question
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.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

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

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Why are people anti Facebook joining the fediverse? (lemmy.ca)

submitted 1 year ago by Greg@lemmy.ca to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

65 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The arguments I've heard about tracking etc are misguided and don't understand the actual risks.

Firstly, posts on the fediverse are already likely being consumed by advertising platforms like Facebook & Google. It would be trivial for big tech companies to setup relays that act as scrapers.

Secondly, the value in platform's tracking individuals is for advertising. There is no mechanism for these platforms to identify you browsing the we if your instance federated with threads. Your instance won't share cookie sessions etc with threads. It doesn't increase your exposure.

Thirdly, these platforms have the know how to deal with spam and they will be incentivised to share that tech with other federated instances.

Don't get me wrong, Facebook is an evil company. But I haven't heard a decent argument as to why them joining the fediverse is a bad thing. We always have the option to defederate in the future.

Change my mind.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] mim@lemmy.sdf.org 61 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Sorry, but I think you're missing the main point.

The risk is not to be tracked, the issue is embrace, extend, and extinguish (EEE): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish

They are currently competing with Twitter and Bluesky, they just need users to kickstart their new platform. That's where the fediverse comes in. All Meta has to do is to convince the instances to give them users.

Meta has a lot of money to throw at UX, they will design a better one than Mastodon. Their instance will also be more reliable (since they have money for lots of computational resources). This will allow them to spread their influence on the fediverse (so that people follow others on Threads), growing up to be the largest instance, and then just defederate from everyone else to “stop spam”. People will then move to Threads so they keep following their friends there (because their friends signed up for meta, since it was all compatible anyway).

And only then, they will start to harvest data and put ads in front of you.

[–] sveri@lemmy.sveri.de 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

While I agree with all of that, I wonder if it's not a good thing regarding users.

Lemmy right now feels like the reddit I joined a decade ago, content and user wise.

And these are the people I want to interact with. While reddit today, like Facebook and Twitter, have a very large user group I don't want to interact with. Mostly memes and boomer talk, nothing original.

[–] mim@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not sure if I understand...

Wouldn't that mean you'd prefer the fediverse to be separate from Meta as well?

[–] sveri@lemmy.sveri.de 1 points 1 year ago

I just want the general audience to be separated from each other. I am just not interested in the usual facebook / meta audience and them being pulled into their own socialverse would be a good way to get rid of their content.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But that's not all Reddit has; think of the more niche communities, like DIY, knitting, rock climbing, game-specific subs, basically anything hobby-related. Also many of the city-related communities. Those are the places people here generally miss from Reddit, and those are the places where Meta will try to make their community the largest, and will use to pull people to their instances.

Like yeah, losing /r/trebuchetmemes is no great loss. But there are other communities where the larger userbase is beneficial, and losing those is a great loss.

[–] sveri@lemmy.sveri.de 2 points 1 year ago

Agreed.

[–] Woozy@lemmy.fmhy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

And I was hoping to get away from all the memes and boomer blaming....

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The "user kick start" argument is interesting and not something I had heard. The fediverse does have active users which is valuable for growing a social media platform. However, Facebook would only need to convert 0.1% of it's users to the new threads and it would drawf the fediverse. So I'm not sure of that's their angle.

[–] mim@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago

It's still a free userbase that they didn't have to grow.

They might not go down that route if they are successful from the beginning to establish a community. But they are still competing with Twitter and Blue sky, so they probably approached the instance admins to get an insurance that there would be activity from the start.

The last thing they want is to be the next Google+ (which they managed to beat). You have to guarantee buzz from the very beginning. After the metaverse flop, they cannot afford another one.

[–] Skelectus@suppo.fi 52 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You forgot the biggest concern that people have.

Remember that Meta's strategy has always been to buy out or kill competitors before they grow too big. This time, when the competitor is immune to normal methods, they're all so friendly and cooperative. Why the complete 180, did they suddenly turn good?

Please read this: https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html

Is your mind changed?

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No, because they can't buy the fediverse. We're immune as we can defederate at anytime.

I appreciate what you're saying though. This smells like Facebook it's realizing where the future of social media is and they want to be a part of it. The difference this time is that they can't own the social media.

Edit: typo

[–] Skelectus@suppo.fi 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm gonna try just a bit more.

Meta can't buy the fediverse, like Google couldn't buy XMPP. XMPP userbase was consumed regardless. My main point is that if allowed to grow into the largest or one of the largest instances, Meta has the ability to cause a lot of damage.

What can they do? They might add new features, such as custom reactions, or new types of post embeds, or something. Developers now have to choose between having broken posts, or trying to catch up Zuckerberg's nonstandards, like if it were the browser wars.

When the average user sees broken posts or can't follow their favourite people anymore because of defederation, they just have a reason to move to a better instance (Threads or some other instance that hasn't defederated). Defederation works if done early. If it's done too late, only the hardcore Meta haters will be left.

That's the worst case. Given their track record, they will use an opportunity to backstab us. I don't know what I will say if people just let Meta pull an EEE that everyone saw from a mile away. In any case, I consider Meta a massive risk for not much benefit (do we even want a wave of Meta users?).

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When the average user sees broken posts or can’t follow their favourite people anymore because of defederation, they just have a reason to move to a better instance.

This is where I think the EEE argument falls apart. Facebook, Instagram, & Twitter are all currently defederated instances with far better features and more people to follow and interact with. The EEE argument doesn't affect the existing fediverse users. Maybe if Twitter federated there would be users moving between Facebook Threads and Twitter but not from the existing fediverse.

[–] Skelectus@suppo.fi 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm a bit late, sorry.

I disagree with that. A large defederation would make an impact, which I think would cause some loss of the growing portion of normal people here.

I guess for the final thoughts I'll ask, how much do you trust Facebook/Meta here? I said this before, but I consider them a risk not worth taking.

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

I don't trust Facebook at all. But firstly, what we're building needs to be resilient to bad actors. Secondly, it's not a zero sum game, something can be beneficial for Facebook and the fediverse. Thirdly, let's be honest, no one that is currently on Mastodon is ever going to migrate to threads. And something like Threads is the only way most people would join the fediverse. You can hate Facebook and still think that Threads may be beneficial for the fediverse, they're not mutually exclusive positions.

[–] Steinsprut@szmer.info 51 points 1 year ago

Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth XMPP the Wise? It's not a story the Corpos would tell you.

[–] andyMFK@reddthat.com 42 points 1 year ago (1 children)

these platforms have the know how to deal with spam and they will be incentivised to share that tech with other federated instances.

Based on what? These private companies aren't going to share anything because they owe it to their shareholders not to.

I dont think any of your points are wrong, it's just the association with Facebook people are anti. The fediverse has a great reputation for being completely removed from profit motive driven mega corporations. Facebook joining is gonna make people question the fediverse is my understanding.

[–] Overzeetop 3 points 1 year ago

As a mod on a FB group, Meta doesn’t know shit about spam blocking that we already do on the ground here.

I give them a month - two, tops - before they find a “need” to either have a change made to the code base or fork and become incompatible. A corporation that big is used to getting its way by simply bulldozing over anything it deems to be out of sync with their vision. This can only end in tears.

[–] ozoned 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've been around long enough to see many projects be extinguished.

To your first point, these companies essentially have infinite money compared to you, me, everyone combined on Mastodon. They can and will figure out a way to track you across servers and they will figure out how to exploit that. Cookies weren't supposed to be used for tracking they way they are, but the money hoarders figured out how to exploit them. Browser fingerprinting wasn't a thing, but it can now be used to track you. How you type and how you speak online can be used to ID you.

If you think that Facebook is willing to share anything, I just don't agree. Facebook will create Threads, they'll put it on the Fediverse, they'll align, then eventually they'll start building features that Mastodon, Lemmy, etc refuse to or literally can't or won't have the time to do, and then they'll start selling how they're so much better and you should come join them, or they'll say they're more secure, or they'll just smear the others. People will flock to the new and better, because hey it's still on the Fediverse and open, eventually they'll close it off and strangle the life out of the Fediverse. I'll still be on the Fediverse, but these platforms are all about content. If people stop showing up, they can still exist, but they're basically useless. It's happened before, it'll happen again.

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Facebook has open sourced loads of their internal tools, for instance PrestoDB. Open sourcing their internal tools is an advantage for Facebook as they get contributions from other developers. Fediverse tooling would fit this model.

[–] bug@lemmy.one 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Open sourcing internal tools is completely different to open sourcing your product. Companies aren't trying to sell their internal tools, so open sourcing them can often save money that they'd otherwise have to spend supporting them themselves. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish is the concern, and it seems pretty likely that Facebook will try and take over the Fediverse by luring people in with propriety features.

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Facebook will do what's best for Facebook. If Facebook joins the Fediverse then sharing tools to reduce spam will benefit Facebook. So I predict that Facebook would share such tooling.

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish is the concern, and it seems pretty likely that Facebook will try and take over the Fediverse by luring people in with propriety features

I don't understand this argument. Who do you think would be lured from Mastodon to Facebook Threads? Is there a feature that Facebook could introduce that would make you consider moving to Facebook? I can't think of one.

[–] bug@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well we don't know what those features are yet, otherwise people would already be trying to implement them! It could be anything though, maybe the servers are just much faster, maybe the UI is more slick, maybe they're the first to implement a load of the features we like from RES, maybe they sell you some extra content for that vendor lock-in. Whatever it is, if they implement it in an unfriendly and/or incompatible way, they start a schism with the rest of the Fediverse; if they're sneaky and wait until they've already got their claws in before doing this then they take a chunk of the more casual users with them.

All this isn't guaranteed to happen, but it seems relatively likely and therefore something people should be prepared to deal with!

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

maybe the servers are just much faster, maybe the UI is more slick, maybe they’re the first to implement a load of the features we like from RES, maybe they sell you some extra content for that vendor lock-in

They already do this though, it's called Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. That's why the EEE argument doesn't make sense. The distinguishing features people keep talking about already exisit in a wall garden yet Mastodon has users. The features that Mastodon users want is freedom and control. Threads can't compete with that but Threads can introduce millions of users to the concept of federation.

[–] ozoned 2 points 1 year ago

They don't make money from their tools. They do from pitching ads and the requires people see the ads. PrestoDB, BTRFS, etc, aren't their money makers. No one ever joined Facebook thinkg "wow I love their backend hardware design!" Those don't matter to them.

[–] Atiran@lemm.ee 26 points 1 year ago

The one thing I would worry about is that a massive deluge of content from Meta would drown out anything else from Lemmy, and would effectively reduce Lemmy to just a client for interacting with Meta. Unless an individual could block Meta specifically (or any one instance) it would effectively kill the All category.

Also would the flood of new traffic make it impossible for individuals to bear the cost of small instances?

That’s just what I think anyway. I’m not totally against federating with them, but very skeptical.

[–] Stan@lemmywinks.com 24 points 1 year ago

these platforms have the know how to deal with spam

Lol they have the know how to generate spam.

[–] CeruleanRuin@lemmy.one 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I just wanted to chime in here and add this lame-assed meme template to things we should retire in the fediverse.

Aaron Crowder is a bigoted chode, and using him for your meme template only undercuts whatever point you want to make.

Find a new meme for this purpose. Let's do better.

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have no idea who Aaron Crowder is. Do you have a suggestion for a better meme template?

[–] CeruleanRuin@lemmy.one 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Lisa Simpson presentation meme is perfectly cromulent for soapboxing.

But if you didn't know, Aaron Crowder is a right-wing Fox News presenter and commentator (he often hides under the dubious label of "comedian") who has been booted from YouTube several times for homophobic and racist content. The meme format is okay in itself, but I'd love to not see his smarmy mug in it.

The great thing about memes is anyone can make a new one. I eagerly await the replacement for this one, which to my nose has gotten quite stale.

[–] ethd 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I believe he's Steven Crowder, not Aaron, just a quick heads up.

[–] CeruleanRuin@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Whoops, nice catch. That was a mental slip on my part. I used to know a guy by that name, and he was also a bit of a chode. Fixed.

[–] OwlHamster@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think this comic does a good job of illustrating one of the the issues. Facebook's business model is getting people to use their platform, then trapping them there and squeezing them for money. The Oatmeal - Reaching people

[–] perviouslyiner@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

There was a similar thing about Apple using the "blue messages" to socially exclude anyone using a different brand of phone - but I can't find it just now

[–] idle@158436977.xyz 17 points 1 year ago

We should stop calling them Meta. You cant just change your name and pretend like nothing happened. Fuck em

[–] dog@suppo.fi 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nice try Zucc. This just makes me want to defederate Threads even more.

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

You got me :( I even used ChatGPT to try and sound more human - Zuck

[–] roo@lemmy.one 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Facebook is reported to be using a shadow profile of non-facebook users. Mastodon stated that whenever you interact with a Threads user it will be recorded by Facebook. All they have to do is join a conversation as a lurker, and your data is sent to Facebook. Given a few more points such as time of day and topic they can start to narrow downwho you are. Add your profile picture, and manner of speech an AI, which they have a multitude of, can generate a probability of who is communicating. Over numerous interactions the law of six degrees of separation will have you nailed down. In some countries this is potentially a problem over data retention, but they'll have lawyers looking night and day for a way around those trifling laws. Willingness to federate might be seen as consent by default in some cases.

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This highlights my point. This attack vector exists with or without threads. Facebook and friends can already scrape fediverse posts and map them to users. Defederating Meta instances won't solve this vulnerability. Which is my point, people don't understand the actual risks.

[–] Dee_Imaginarium 5 points 1 year ago

Data gained through integration of an instance is far more than what's gained in scraping. The data gained through federation will no doubt increase as Meta adds new features that require more data in order to federate with them. They have over a decade of evidence showing us they're evil and have no respect for privacy or people. I do not understand your logic in saying it's okay to federate, it's like watching somebody defend an abusive partner. They've hurt you and communities in the past, stop giving them more rope. The devil does not need an advocate.

[–] Snugglebug 12 points 1 year ago

Advertising to people currently on the Fediverse probably isn't their goal. Neither is just joining the Fediverse. Their goal is to become the Fediverse to swallow it whole.

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

They also have no incentive to share anti-spam tech. They would be giving up a massive sellin g point of their instance if they did.

Additionally, Threads is already stripping its implementation of ActivityPub of some features like alt text and CWs. Worse though is that they're removing the option for a chronological timeline, forcing their algorithm as the only option for its users. This would be fine, except it would also effect content on all instances (to an extent). Given that Threads will no doubt have a userbase larger than that of most instances, and that posts which play into its algorithm will show up for significantly more people, posts which engage with Threads' algorithm will be boosted more often, thus showing up for more people who aren't using Threads.

Say Threads' algorithm really likes posts that get lots of replies. Someone writes a controversial post on mastodon.social and lots of people on Threads immediately get in arguments in the replies. This post is then promoted by Threads' algorithm, causing it to be seen by more people on Threads. More eyes on a post means more likelihood of getting a higher number of boosts. Lots of accounts on Threads boost the post, which causes it to be seen by more people in federated instances. Again, more eyes means more likelihood of getting boosted. At this point the post is popular not just in Threads, but also in instances federated with Threads. Which means it'll pop up more often on other instances that do not federate with Threads. Threads' algorithm, only being implemented on Threads, extends its toxic influence out even to servers which refuse to federate with Threads.

[–] theshatterstone54@feddit.uk 11 points 1 year ago

https://mb.com.ph/2023/6/21/meta-to-embrace-extend-extinguish-the-fediverse

[–] peanuts4life 8 points 1 year ago

City planners in Florida circa 2010: "The villages sounds like a great retirement community! We can allow them to expand into our small city and they'll bring in new customers and businesses!

The villages in 2020: "If they don't want to sell their houses to us, they shouldn't be able to use our roads! We'll also adjust our franchise contracts so that Panera bread won't serve them food anymore."

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 8 points 1 year ago

It’s worth saying, though, that Threads hasn’t joined the fediverse yet. They could be pulling an Apple, who committed to opening FaceTime and changed their mind. Let’s see.

[–] UnanimousStargazer@feddit.nl 8 points 1 year ago

The beauty of federating servers is that everybody can setup their own server, provided they own a domain name.

In theory I could start a server registered to unanimousstargazer.social and create an account called @unanimousstargazer@unanimousstargazer.social and participate in the fediverse. If I choose to block Meta, then that's my choice.

I agree people are unnecessarily making a fuzz about this, as it's their own choice to join a server or not. The fediverse is open, so why can't Meta join. That's up to them. And if I want to block them, that's up to me.

[–] olizet@lemmy.works 7 points 1 year ago

Because it's Facebook. Fixing our buggy app? No, instead let's port those bugs to the desktop web site!

They're powerful but incompetent. FB even sent me a survey "why are you not visiting FB like you did before?".

[–] giddy@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

I really don't see the problem. I won't be signing up to Threads but I will happily follow Threads users from my Mastodon account if I like their content.

[–] ReakDuck@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You miss the entire point, its mostly about EEE

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

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm aware of the EEE argument. It's just not valid in this instance. Let's follow the EEE argument. Facebook extends the capabilities of activitypub and makes third party users no longer compatible. Then what? We're in the exact same place we are now, Facebook having a wall garden and the rest of the fediverse doing its own thing.

[–] ReakDuck@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

You arw too optimistic, there is always a way, and it will probably not replace lemmy or kbin but maybe mastodon or any other healthy ActivityHub service. The danger is there, just because you don't know the answer to the the real danger doesn't mean there is no danger.

Facebook (or rather "Meta") has a buisness model, and its there to damage us all, grow into infinity and be the number one. They will become creative and always take an unhealthy turn whenever its possible.

With very little probability it may become an utopia where everything will be nicely federated and still Open and Open Source. With high probability they will focus on full destruction to gain the most money out of any situation.

load more comments