If you take a look at their CEOs fediverse acct, you'll see he's pretty caught up in the mastodon hype. He's coming at the whole thing from the perspective of mastodon being the platform, instead of the weird disjointed fediverse. People have tried explaining things he's not understanding fully, and he kinda brushes it off. I think even in a decentralized network, there are some ppl who still need some centralized platform to focus in on.
I actually come at this from an open standards pov and believe in the power of interoperable systems on a shared network. I built a startup in the early 90s called Paper which launched a 3D plugin for Netscape called WebFX built on an open standard called VRML that held the promise to create a 3D web. Paper was acquired by Netscape and then I worked on a bunch of open standards like XML, HTML 4, RSS, etc. Then I started a new company called Tellme which was the forerunner to Siri and Alexa built on VoiceXML, an open standard that held the promise to create a voice web. As cool as that work was, an open voice web or open 3d web never happened. These days at Flipboard I'm focused on ActivityPub and I see an incredible amount of diversity and decentralized innovation happening here in such a way that the open social web could very well happen. And that would be good for everyone. But I've fought these battles before and lost enough to know that this is not a sure thing. There are many twists and turns along the way and I am hoping to do my part to navigate those in way which is a win for good acting members of society, non-profits and businesses.
re: Mastodon I see it as the largest use case of the social web today. But there are many others as you well know. We just stood up a peertube instance today for example and I love my pixelfed account. I have been following kbin and Lemmy with lots of interest though reluctant to sign up and engage mostly cause I am worried about spreading myself too thin across all these amazing activitypub services.
re: your broader point. I agree that most people have no appreciation for the fediverse beyond mastodon. And people get confused when they think of Mastodon in terms grounded in the centralized model used for how social media mostly works today. It reminds me of how people thought AOL was the best way to be online and that the internet was super confusing and just for scientists.
There will be a lot of education and evangelism and, more importantly, new apps and use cases that will be needed to make this vision of an open social web actually happen. I'm just happy to be doing my part to help.
re: Mastodon I see it as the largest use case of the social web today. But there are many others as you well know. We just stood up a peertube instance today for example and I love my pixelfed account. I have been following kbin and Lemmy with lots of interest though reluctant to sign up and engage mostly cause I am worried about spreading myself too thin across all these amazing activitypub services.
This was my point. You shouldn't need an account on all of these services. You should be able to interact from your single Flipboard account. But its likely that, like most new fediverse services, you were testing mostly (or probably solely) against Mastodon. Despite Flipboard having more in common with link aggregators like kbin/lemmy, yall went for mastodon compatibility first.
A lot of people are worried about large orgs/companies like Flipboard/Meta joining the fediverse and controlling it, but Mastodon itself has been in that position for a long time. It's controlled and limited the fediverse for a while and people keep reinforcing its control instead of expanding on the fediverse's plurality.
I agree with you that the fediverse’s plurality is crucial to reinforce right now. This is why integrated with Pixelfed and promoted it to our users early this year. We will be able to introduce people to other services across the fediverse once we’ve completed our activitypub cutover.
This post doesn’t address the main “pro-federation” point that I have seen. People who are support of federation aren’t saying that Facebook is a great company, they have great morales or that they aren’t supporting ActivityPub for their own gain. I think there is very little doubt that FB is a shit organization with no morales who thinks that this is a great move to get people back to their sites.
The most common reason that I see people supportive of Threads’ federation is that they believe it will help people move off of Facebook and other proprietary platforms onto more user-friendly ones. If all of your friends use Instagram it is very hard to move to Mastodon. If you want to stay in touch you will at least need two accounts. You can move friends but it is hard because they each need to make that switch and it affects their interaction with others, or they need to manage multiple accounts until most of their friends have switched. If your friends use Threads (and it federates) then you can switch to Mastodon with very little friction, you can still interact with all of your existing friends in more or less the same way. Similarly each friend can easily move without managing multiple accounts during the transition. If all instances have blocked threads.net many people just won’t move, they will stay with FB.
To make a good argument you need to either refute this perceived advantage or argue that it isn’t worth the downsides. Making up a strawman doesn’t convince anyone.
I get what you're saying, I think most people fear that instead FB's septic tank will spill and spread in the Fediverse instead; I already had to deal with some "FREE SPEECH!" guy that wanted it to be a platform where people for example from Hamas and Israel could discuss and "agree to disagree".
It's not a bad thing, gives you the option to read them on the Fediverse and it proves that the Fediverse could possibly be the future of Social Media. It's good to see other people want to see it grow.
If people don't like it then personally block it, the only reason for blocking a whole instance, instance wide is if it has morals that conflict to much such as a Anti-LGBT instance vs a LGBT one.
I’ve seen an argument that defederation would just hurt the fediverse, and that even an exploitative giant like Meta should therefore be welcomed.
I think that’s like arguing that we should get rid of antitrust laws, which we have for good reason. We need to be able to stop bad actors and the damage they do. Especially large ones.
If a Mastodon instance was run by someone who allowed a genocide to be fuelled by their platform, and earn money from the advertising, I think we'd defederate in a heart beat. It just doesn't seem consistent to federate with them.
Let's put it this way: Just because they live under an oppressive regime doesn't mean we should be mean to them and keep them isolated in their evil bubble.
Say, many would agree that Han people in China are oppressed. They have a ton of middle-class citizens who are free to leave the country, they just don't want to permanently due to not thinking it'd be better.
Same applies to Threads, though maybe a stronger case for leaving.
I’m not having a conversation that compares people signing up to their favourite social media channel with people who suffer systemic discrimination every day in their lives.
I mean, you know they aren't going to have adequate content moderation because they ALREADY don't. Lack of moderation is the #1, #2, and #3 best reasons to defederate.
Wanting to see proof before taking positive action is valid and sensible. But you can't pretend it isn't something you can already make reasonable inferences about. This is not a new unknown and pretending it is is ridiculous.
Email servers do not automatically feed content into and pull content out of your system. They only send and deliver to specific people at specific addresses. Federation is a firehose. You can close the hydrant before or after it gets hooked up to city water, but at the end of the day only people that chose to do things the sensible way will have dry socks and no water damage.
this is just not true, sorry. instances only retrieve/pushed specified actions/actors. . pretending it is is ridiculous. this is now a new unknown, this is how the ap protocol works.
and your shit is already public, if they want to suck it all in there is literally nothing stopping them right now. federation or not.
Like I linked in the OP post, the problem isn't their implementation of the protocol, but what FB is, and what it has done; and it probably would not stop doing it in the Fediverse. If Hannnibal Lecter moved in the neighbourhood I wouldn't answer his dinner invite, just to see what's on the menu.
whatever. i hate facebook, i dont use their crap. but im not going out of my way to block their AP protocol any more than i would their SMTP protocol.
when their activity in a specific context demonstrably, negatively affects my system, ill take action as i would any negative impact from any protocol on any of my services.
when i get a spammer, i block them. but again, im not going out of my way to spite some big asshole company, and potentially lose out on coordinating an offramp for those trapped in its walls.
everyone here as proven one thing: there is no technical reason to block threads. its entirely political/moral/spite and a lot of 'maybes'.
i hate facebook, i dont use their crap.
when their activity negatively affects my system, ill take action
You made it black and white. But don't mind me, dismiss what I say; just don't go crying the next time someone you know dies from covid cause they read on Threads that vaccines are bad.
I have already done my part on my Mastodon account.
My main concern is the awful moderation of Meta's services. Bullying, celebration of loss of rights and violence committed towards of protected minorities; and outright misinformation are allowed. All while the very same people duped the moderation AI to flag any criticism of said hate speech as the real hate speech because false reportings. Facebook, instagram, etc. are notorious for letting big far-right accounts get away with hate speech and defamation, and I don't really think it'll be different on Threads for very long.
EDIT: In the meanwhile, I remembered screenshots of showing this exact moderation problem already happening on Threads, but to a way lesser degree, than on Facebook so far. Maybe this will make them getting booted from even the instances that didn't originally plan to defederate them.
On the Lemmy and Kbin Magazine side of things, Threads won’t be a huge threat as most discussion will stay on existing communities/magazines, and most of the same users will be there with some interaction from Threads users.
On the Mastodon and the microblog side of things Threads will be interesting and I think the healthiest option is some server disconnect from Threads and others don’t. What you don’t want is ALL the discussion happening on threads and within threads, Threads should be set up as a gateway to the rest of the Fediverse despite the size difference.
All I’ll say is that it’s not much of a “fediverse” if you just preemptively defederate from anyone trying to grow it because you’re scared of what might change. More of a “fediclub” at that point.
Really kills the “it’s like email!” metaphor when you defederaters are constantly trying to break that interoperability by stirring up FUD and blocking instances for theoretical stuff they haven’t even done yet.
It’s like email except your server admin might decide one day they don’t want you to talk to anyone who has an @gmail.com address because they don’t like Google. What fun!
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.
Instances should be defederated when they do something harmful. Preemptively defederating is counterproductive, it gives Meta no incentive to do things right.
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.
Nothing makes it special. My point is not that I think Facebook will do no wrong, my point is that it's counterproductive to defederate from them before they've done something wrong.
kbin.social
Newest