this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
189 points (100.0% liked)

Fediverse

757 readers
1 users here now

A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.

Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".

Getting started on Fediverse;

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rottcodd@lemmy.ninja 62 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Funny thing - the last time I saw a promising forum destroyed, the beginning of the end was when people got all in a panic about some purported external threat and started demanding a "united front" to combat it. Then they started calling for retribution against anyone who didn't join them. Then they just kept fanning the flames of hostility against anyone on the forum that they decided wasn't sufficiently devoted to their cause, and the forum ended up tearing itself apart from within.

[–] ModdedPhones@lemmy.ml 34 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Allowing meta to be federated with anything is like inviting the world's best arsonist your house warming party.

Also, allowing meta or any other of the BP is like pissing your pants, feel nice warm in the beginning..

EEE is a known and well deployed tactic. And a lot larger threat than your perceived division of the user base.

Join threads if you wish but don't bring the fediverse down with you.

[–] Rottcodd@lemmy.ninja 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I have no intention of joining Threads, or of being a part of any instance that's federated with them.

And that's entirely beside the point. I'm not arguing the merits (or lack thereof) of Threads or of federation with them.

I'm simply relaying the fact that I've already seen a forum destroyed by the sort of internal strife you're fomenting.

And it should be noted that with your response, you're still following the script exactly, by jumping to the conclusion that because I criticized your call for a "united front," I must be on the side of the enemy.

[–] ModdedPhones@lemmy.ml 23 points 2 years ago

Well here we are , we have 2 different points diverging. Everyone that wants to keep BD away as much as possible and your point that allowing them to fester and not only effecting your data but all of ours.

I believe the majority will decide that they are tired of BD and want an alternative that is free from corporate overlords.

Perhaps your fake unity not to splinter that is the problem and not my call for united Front?

It's quite obvious that we who do not want it will not participate in helping meta.

What option do you leave us with?

Not walling them off will be the problem in the long run.

[–] supergrobi@mastodon.berlin 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] cnqr 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Completely wrong info on that post:

You can’t use Threads without Instagram, afaik.

What we know

Threads is a separate app from Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram. This means Threads’ user base will be separate from their existing platforms. Instagram users however can sign-in using their Instagram accounts. It will not be available in the EU and will not support federation at launch.

[–] fades 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Why rush the defed? Defed when there is a proper reason to, we aren’t there yet. I don’t care about threads, don’t have an ig account but it could be good for federation and also it only hurts the community, at least for now

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SilentStorms@lemmy.fmhy.ml 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

This is getting ridiculous. Every thread about this is just people parroting "embrace, extend, extinguish" and "enshittification" ad nauseam. No one is actually saying how they could accomplish that. Even if they're technically federated (which I doubt will happen, Meta will probably just want to federate with a couple of the biggest Mastodon servers) we will barely interact with them at all, think of how rarely Mastodon posts show up here. This is a grounded article on what's going on: https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2023/07/what-to-know-about-threads/

[–] Rottcodd@lemmy.ninja 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Yeah - I read that article yesterday.

While I agree that the panic is tiresome, I wouldn't call that a "grounded" article. It struck me as entirely predictable PR fluff from the "CEO" of Mastodon, which is to say, the specific person who stands to profit the most from any sort of deal with Meta.

The strength of the fediverse is its freedom, and specifically each individual's freedom to create an instance or join any instance they prefer. So my plan is to simply exercise my freedom as I see fit, and without submitting to the rhetoric either of people who are trying to convince me to panic or trying to convince me to welcome Meta with open arms.

[–] KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz 6 points 2 years ago

Wasn't he paid by meta and put under an NDA? Would not trust any meta related info from him right now

[–] CheeseQueen@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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?

[–] Hexorg 2 points 2 years ago

It stops the extension, and puts pressure on other instances. They now need to choose between federation with Meta or the rest of the fediverse. It also adds pressure to activity pub devs to not accept merge requests from Meta. Meta's strategy is likely to create some deliberately created merge requests that’ll break fediverse but Threads will have the right back end to handle those requests properly. Suddenly you’ll have “threads has this cool feature and mastodon is constantly struggling with errors, go to threads!” articles.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Bishma@social.fossware.space 17 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

If the Fediverse can't survive Threads is can't survive period, and we should all just move on now.

[–] misaloun@reddthat.com 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I hate defederation for things like this. This should be a user's choice, not imposed by the instance itself. I hate how the fediverse forces the moderation choices on you.

I dont care that instagram uses activityPub. As long as I can use activityPub myself, thats enough for me. Most people will always stick with big social media, and I would rather be able to interact with them vs. not

[–] animist@lemmy.one 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Why shouldn't the instance owner make that choice? It's their hardware, time, money, and desire that made that instance. As soon as I start one, first thing I'm doing is making sure it never gets federated with fashy instances or meta.

[–] bluejay@partizle.com 7 points 2 years ago

Yeah this is a weird spot with who really wants to control things. I would argue anyone with a strong opinion one way or the other should probably self host. Those that can't will need to find an instance where their views line up with the instance admin.

Ultimately I think you're right though, instance admin has final say since uh, they're the admin. Anyone who wants to admin a huge instance probably would leave it open for users to decide though.

[–] kogasa@programming.dev 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Nothing is forced on anyone. The user can choose a different instance that does federate with Threads, and still participate in the first instance.

[–] CheeseQueen@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What this post is asking for is exactly not that, that if you are in any instance that federates threads, then you shouldnt be able to interact with any that follows this posts petition

[–] kogasa@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Yeah, I don't agree with that. It just doesn't stop anyone from using either platform.

[–] kogasa@programming.dev 12 points 2 years ago

Defederating from Threads makes sense. Defederating transitively from anything federated with Threads ends in one of two ways: your instance shrivels up and dies, or you successfully kill Threads. Not particularly good odds. You can't compete with Meta, you can only try to maintain your independence and value as an independent platform.

[–] Wander@yiffit.net 12 points 2 years ago

At this rate we'll extinguish ourselves before Meta even gets to the third E.

[–] throws_lemy@lemmy.nz 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] mojo@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You realize all the stuff you post is public, right?

[–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 years ago (4 children)

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?

[–] mojo@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 years ago

Thats what the person you were responding to was talking about yes.

[–] cnqr 2 points 2 years ago

How can they see that info unless you are using their app in the first place?

If you use a different app, all you’d be doing is fetching their posts and comments and all Meta can do is fetch your posts and comments. You aren’t fetching telemetry data.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mojo@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago

Jesus christ this is turning into virtue signalling brain rot

[–] Syrup@lemmy.cafe 5 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] csolisr@communities.azkware.net 5 points 2 years ago

I expected the anti-Meta division to eventually demand recursive bans. The end result will be a hermit kingdom, and that's fine and dandy, but expect the Fedipact users to keep talking solely among themselves. (And the users that disagree to move elsewhere, making the hermit kingdom to become even more of an echo chamber)

[–] gabriele97@lemmy.g97.top 5 points 2 years ago

Wtf, it doesn't make any absolute sense to defederate from instances that accepted to federate with threads!

[–] abogical@lemmy.one 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

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.

[–] minorsecond@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

I just blocked them on Mastodon. Thanks!

[–] GnomeKat 1 points 2 years ago

Please dont let meta fuck up the fetiverse god... cant one place on the internet be free of corpos

[–] JoYo@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

threads will never federate.

@JoYo @ModdedPhones Pretty much all evidence points to the contrary

load more comments
view more: next ›