• Pxtl@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Dumb. Federation is how we escape from every cloud-based service being a dictatorship of the person who owns the platform. That includes federating with privately own orgs to provide them an exit.

    By all means make good tools to allow individual users to block Threads (or other private instances ruled by amoral coporations), but doing it at instance level is just dumb.

    edit: also, number of instances doesn’t matter. Number of daily active users matters. Most users are on mastodon.social, mastodon.cloud, lemmy.world, hachyderm.io, lemmy.world, etc. And all of those are federating. The only large instance that is not federating with threads is mas.to

    • Otter@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      What I hate to see, even in this thread, is people turning on each other in this “us vs. them”, “you’re either a part of the pact or you’re against us” nonsense

      Let’s all remember why WE ALL CHOSE to get on the fediverse and build it. The strength of the fediverse comes from the freedom for each instance to choose how to run things. My understanding is that no one in an instance is harmed if some other instance chooses to federate or defederate from Threads.

      I hate Meta. I also know that Meta doesn’t need to do anything to take down the fediverse if we do it ourselves.

      • Pxtl@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Part of it is just today’s polarized political climate, especially since the popularity of the Fediverse is partially a backlash to reactionaries taking over Twitter and the corporate enshittification of Facebook and Reddit.

        Everything is a war now, and solidarity and boycotts are basically the only weapons that small, independent actors have. So people apply “don’t cross the picket line” thinking to everything, even where it doesn’t make sense.

        Want to act properly? Contribute money and labour towards your instances. Help them build better moderation tools so they can handle the flood of crap from Threads, and onboarding tools and better UX so they can steal away the Threads users.

        • voidMainVoid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          “The flood of crap” isn’t what people should be worried about. They should be worried about Meta embracing, extending, and extinguishing the Fediverse. There’s a good article about this here. People are worried about the wrong things and don’t realize what’s at stake.

          • Spuddlesv2@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The Ploum article again. Please explain how the circumstances with XMPP and ActivityPub are remotely similar.

            • voidMainVoid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Both are open protocols for communication over the Internet. Both have been adopted by a large corporate interest.

              Now, how are they different?

              • Spuddlesv2@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I asked how the circumstances are similar, not vague descriptions that suit your existing views. But sure.

                XMPP was dogshit back in 2004. A good idea, but nowhere NEAR what it needed to be to actually get mainstream acceptance. ActivityPub is light years ahead.

                There were very very few XMPP users in 2004. There are millions of ActivityPub users. If meta was to pull the plug on federation it wouldn’t kill ActivityPub, there would still be millions of us here. We joined Lemmy/Kbin/Mastodon because we don’t want to live in a centrally controlled/owned social platform. That won’t change just because we can suddenly interact with Threads users. In fact, if anything, once Threads users hear that we get the same shit they do without the ads, they might decide to join us instead.

                Google killing off XMPP integration didn’t kill XMPP. It did that all on its own.

                • voidMainVoid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If meta was to pull the plug on federation it wouldn’t kill ActivityPub, there would still be millions of us here.

                  It’s not about pulling the plug. It’s about introducing proprietary features that break communication, forcing people off of an independent server and onto Threads.

                  If most of your IRL friends are on Threads and your experience with them has gotten janky due to Meta fucking with the protocol, it’s going to be very difficult to not switch over to Threads.

                  Oh, and good luck trying to get your friends to switch over to some indie server they’ve never heard of. If you can do that, then you should run for president.

            • Eldritch@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well that and the story while not “wrong”, is definitely hyperbolic. The author even stated after stating that Google killed XMPP that they didn’t. So which is it? I’m not a dev, but an avid open source fan. i first tried Linux in 1995. Started using jabber itself in 1999 through Gaim. Later pidgin and psi clients in 2001-2. There were a ton of problems beyond Google. As far as clients were concerned there was no reference version. And there really were no large professionally run servers like mastodon.social or lemmy.world. People, myself included put too much hope in the Google basket. It was a massive unearned win in user count. That was just as easily lost. And kept people from focusing on the core service. Yes Google was never a good steward. Corporations never are. But the lack of official clients and servers, plus their decision to persue IETF standardization had as big or bigger impact on the services development and adoption.

              The moral of the story isn’t that Google or anyone else can kill an open source project. Microsoft Google and many more have tried and failed. The moral is that we shouldn’t cater to them or give them special treatment. They aren’t the key to success.

        • Otter@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          It is

          I’m not sure if defederating is the correct counter to it

          • scarabic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Defederating from known-bad-actor corporations during the “embrace” phase seems like a perfectly wise choice to me. Keeps them from getting to stage 2.

    • FishFace@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you federate with something too massive though it has undue weight on the entire system. It is likely to be Embrace, Extend, Extinguish again, and it’s reasonable to want to avoid that.

      For people who don’t remember, the pattern would be something like:

      1. Federate and use the existing ecosystem to help you grow and to grow mutually (Embrace)
      2. Add new features that only work locally, drawing users away from other instances to your own (Extend)
      3. Defederate - the remainder is left with a fraction of the users since many moved away, so the users on the local instance don’t care. (Extinguish)

      It depends whether 2 actually succeeds at pulling users in. Arguably most people already on the Fediverse are unlikely to jump ship to Facebook, but you have to consider what happens in a few years if it’s grown, but Facebook is a huge name which makes people less likely to join other instances.

    • The Hobbyist@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think the fear is that this turns into an “embrace, extend, extinguish”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish

      I don’t know if the fear is well rooted, but I can definitely understand how Facebook is perceived as not having established a history of trust.

      They are a private company, which have placed profits above the best interests of its users.

      Edit: I think you can draw a parallel with another scenario: an open and free market requires regulation. There should be rules and boundaries, such that a true free and open market exists. Similarly, there’s an argument to be made than we should restrict the fediverse for it to keep existing in the way we want it to.

      • Pxtl@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago
        1. Jabber was much smaller than the Fediverse when Google launched Talk.

        2. Users are more aware of the risk now. “Oh you should go use Google Talk, it’s an open standard” is stupid in retrospect. Likewise, “you should use Threads, it’s an open standard” would be absurd. The value here is “you should use Mastodon/Lemmy/whatever, it’s a good open platform and still lets you interact with Threads users”.

        3. It’s important to remember that the most famous example of embrace-extend-extinguish ultimately failed: Microsoft’s tweaks to Java and Javascript are long dead, Microsoft having embraced Google’s javascript interpreter and abandoned Java in favour of their home-grown .NET platform.

    • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Forgive me for repeating this, but I think it’s a great analogy and explains all of our thoughts about it:

      I’ve used this analogy before, but threads is like a huge, 5k passenger cruise ship docking in a small town in Alaska. You don’t have to know ahead of time that the 2 public bathrooms, one at the general store and the other at McDonalds, aren’t going to be enough. You can also forecast the complaining about how everything isn’t really tourist ready. It will suck for everyone. The small museum will be overrun and damaged, the people will be treated like dirt. It’s an easy forecast.

      Here’s the important bit, just because they’ve never been in the cruise line business, doesn’t mean you have to give them a chance to ruin your town.

      • SeedyOne@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thank you, someone finally looking big picture. I see a lot of folks talking about things like “it won’t harm Threads” or “the federation is all about inclusiveness and joining together” and those people, while correct on paper, are missing the point.

        Put simply, many instances would prefer not to deal with that unnatural influx, and that is their choice. In fact, the best part of the fediverse is not only that they CAN make that choice it’s that they can UNDO it later if need be. I can’t fault some of these smaller instances for being proactive in protecting themselves when few here really know what goes into running and moderating.

        • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Threads wants to join the fediverse to either steal the content and/or kill it, there would be no other reasons.

          • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yes. My personal guess is that they want to start Threads as just another Federation instance where people build communities and relationships across instances as they do already, and act like a good Fediverse instance, all friendly and open and free . . . and then once there’s enough popularity and/or cross-traffic they will wall off the Threads portion and monetize access, so you’re forced to either pay up to continue in the parts you like and are invested in, or walk away leaving everything you put into it to Meta and paying users.

            Oh, and they’ll suck up as much Fediverse data as they can too, while they’re at it: anything they have access to will be hoovered up for their commercial use, just as it is now. Federating means that all federated traffic will be propagated to Meta servers in due course, and we all know Meta has zero intention of being bound by any agreements in regard to the data of others, regardless of what platitudes they mouth.

            On a personal level, I don’t give a shit whether lemmy.world federates with Threads, but only because I have already made the decision personally not to participate in ANYTHING Meta, and that includes here on the Fediverse.

            I’m already here because Reddit pulled that same shit, and I walked away then too. I learned my lesson. No way will I knowingly cross that line into personally investing time and attention into what Meta could wall off at any time and monetize without recourse for anyone who does make that mistake.

            And I’d rather they not have my data, but it’s not like I’m in any position to stop or prevent it. Best I can do is stay away from all Meta products, apps, trackers, and cookies.

            TL;DR: People can do what they want with Threads, federate or don’t, participate or don’t, just know that Meta can and will wall it off at any time and expect participants to pay in some way to continue.

  • rekabis@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I keep on forgetting that “threads” (in lowercase) is frequently being used to refer to “Threads” the Facebook thing, and not separate sub-communities within the Fediverse.

    Was getting all confused as to why Fediverse instances were internally blocking each other.

    Y’all all need to learn capitalization, yo. Helps reduce confusion by turning certain things into the proper nouns that they actually are.

  • archchan@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    FYI the 41% of instances that block or limit Threads (from the source data which doesn’t have every instance), accounts for 24% of the user base of the fediverse.

  • phillaholic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Maybe a hot take, but if you want this big libertarian anarchist federated system you get all the pros and cons along with it. Not having a central authority means you have no real power to stop someone from coming in and taking it. It’s inevitable by design.

    • Pxtl@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I disagree that fediverse is inherently libertarian/anarchist. In fact, a big selling point is that you can find an instance the administration agrees with your politics and will implement moderation policy accordingly.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure, to a certain extent. But having an ability to opt out is far healthier than the walled gardens we have now.

      • phillaholic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        In theory. In reality you’re bringing feather dusters to a nuclear bomb fight. A handful of hobbyists hosting instances with how many users? Couple hundred thousand? Against a 100 Billion dollar company with 3 Billion people? Yea good luck with that.

        • Kethal@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          How do you think this works? Yes, Meta will partake in the Fediverse. No one is trying to stop that. That chart won’t get to 100% and no one cares if it does. People are just ensuring that there’s a place where Meta won’t be, and you don’t need billions to do that.

          • GluWu@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Look at a pie chart of “internet users of x type platform” from pre fediverse. If original internet dies and fedi does take off, it will be the same chart but they will be instances instead of www sites. There are still plenty of those prefacebook, premyspace forums on the www, it’s just only a few people use them.

  • Pxtl@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    ITT:

    “Nobody understands fedipact, Jabber, activitypub, Ruby, embrace/extend/extinguish, mastodon, lemmy, Java, federation, Kubernetes, XMPP, Docker, architecture, carburetors, Ikebana, midwifery, Filipino stickfighting, Zoroastrianism, hegelian philosophy, or XML but me, and therefore you’re all morons with nothing to contribute to this conversation”.

  • pascal@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Brilliant, all the propaganda about “join us, the fediverse is like email” gone to shit. More like “it’s like email, but if you email ends with @hotmail.com we will block your messages”.

    I agree with the sentiment, not with these actions, instead of giving meta users a way to break free, we built a wall between us and them, who have way more content, because we’re afraid of Zuck stealing our data, which is public and he already done.

    • Robaque@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s not about stealing data, it’s about not letting Zuck gain influence and control of the fediverse.

    • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      What a fucking hateful choice of colours. Green for blocking and red for allowing communication. Really shows what kind of perspective the creator has.

      • SeedyOne@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Apparently this is a divisive topic, moreso than expected. Edited for clarity.

        Huh? Green means it has been blocked and needs no further action. Red means it needs attention [if you’re on the side of defederating that is].

        • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          The point is that it’s portraying not blocking as an inherently negative thing, which isn’t universally agreed upon at all. Plenty of people would say that they don’t need any attention at all. It’s not presenting objective in a neutral way, but rather labeling a group as bad.

          Of course, it’s probably fair to assume that the author has no intention of being neutral, but it’s still valid grounds to criticize it as a data visualization.