And that's precisely why so many people are calling for everyone to defederate immediately from anything facebook-owned. The only way to prevent this is to not even let them get started.
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
14 points (100.0% liked)
Showerthoughts
28360 readers
474 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The best ones are thoughts that many people can relate to and they find something funny or interesting in regular stuff.
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- Posts must be original/unique
- Be good to others - no bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yeah imo this is the only way. Fediverse should be completely user-owned, we need to isolate any corporation that tries to get involved.
Non-profits like Mozilla and Wikimedia might be OK.
I would at least give them a chance. Meta is DOA.
Either we have an open system or we don't.
It's sort of like open source encryption algorithms versus security by obscurity. One is totally open because it's foundation is strong. The other is hidden because it is actually weak.
Which are we going to be?
This feels very close to the paradox of tolerance, honestly. To achieve maximum tolerance, you can not tolerate those who are intolerant themselves, or they will destroy you from within. I think something similar applies here. To achieve a maximally open system, be open by default, but only to those who actually share the goal to keep the system as open as possible, and defend vigorously against those who don't.
We are going to be open. Open to the idea that a bucket of shit does not have to be forced upon us. Open to using the tools to get rid of said bucket.
What I think is interesting about this is the decision to federate goes down to individual instances. So for example mastodon.social is the biggest - their decision is very important.
But on the smaller level, users will be able to choose instances that won't federated with Meta. And they will be able to choose the inverse.
What I see happening is that the ones that do choose to federated with Meta will grow larger and sort of suck up most of the userbase. At the end of the day, social media sites are only as valuable as the number of users and the interactions between those users.
But to give power to the users we’ve got to solve the username problem. Usernames need to be global so there is no penalty to moving between instances.
Pretty stupid to want to defederate an instance over one Trump troll, but not defederste Zuckerberg, the emperor of trolldom. Yes, pls do everything possible to keep Meta away.
I see we disagree on whether one smart guy or a dumb guy with a bajillion listeners is the bigger problem.
I read somewhere that all the Admins are blocking Facebook on a firewall level so that they can't touch any instance. Hope all Admins do it.
The moment I start seeing Meta content here is the moment I leave. People are being very, VERY naive in thinking that the Fediverse is immune to corporate interest. Judging by the Mastodon response, we are already seeing that it's not.
The whole point of open protocols is that anyone can use it. Just block any instance you don't like and you're good!
In email world, gmail became so successful that now its a problem when they decide to blacklist any other email domains that Alphabet don't like. We should never allow profit driven entities get their foot in the door. We should develop a strong immune system against such profit seeking groups/companies etc. We should remain open to people, non-profits, universities and the likes only.
Then block meta you don't need to leave make them leave you were here first we built this space not them don't surrender to meta
So many knee-jerk reactions.
This is an open protocol with complete freedom to create apps and scripts. If this becomes an issue users could block certain interactions in a granular manner, for example block replies from certain instances.
XMPP being thrown around as an example makes me think people who do it weren't there to witness it. XMPP by itself wasn't really used by many but there were also many more popular messaging platforms at the time. XMPP wasn't killed because it wasn't ever alive other than short golden era when it was mostly a way to open itself to third party clients (Gaim, Trillian, Adium etc) which was very nice.
Next year EU is going to make all tech giants open in this way again. Mastodon can EEE Threads too by being a better implementation. It has no commercial pressure and Activity Pub and formatting tweets is not as complex as a web browser engine or a word processor document format which are way better examples of successful EEE.
If you defederate you'll end up exactly where XMPP is.
I agree with the sentiment, I'm not a fan of preemptively blocking meta on instance level, especially when everyone was touting about how the fediverse is corporation resistant and by design it is resilient because of it's horizontal nature, but at the first sign of threat they resort to the nuclear option.
Having said that, Lemmy specifically lacks tools on the user level, especially blocking instances. If a user doesn't want to associate at all that is understandable (privacy concerns, not wanting to interact with hate groups, etc) but right now they can only block communities and users individually, which would make it impossible to block meta.
Lastly, I feel there are avenues that haven't been properly explored, like forcing them to open source if they want to federate. (On the grounds of privacy concerns and security) In practice that would be the same as blocking them, but it would laid out a good foundation for new companies that want to enter the space without having to discriminate on a case by case basis.
Problem is that blocking is the nuclear option and everyone blovking before something comes out, which no one knows the danger yet like a hate speach platform would entail, goes against the spirit of the fediverse.
My reason for preemptively blocking Threads is much simpler - Lemmy exposes a TON of data from all instances. I simply don't want to feed the data hog any more than absolutely necessary.
But a counter is that much of that information is already public and can be scraped, they aren't gaining much on outside meta users that they aren't already able to do.
Best advice at the end of the day is that for social media, unless advertised on privacy, never post anything you dont want to be public. And for cases like lemmy, expect even metadata to be available for anyone interested.
I understand the wish to not interact with meta, even if its for privacy concerns.
But Im a firm believer that it is the user first who needs to make that decision, not the instance. But as I said, Lemmy being the only one of the big fedi platforms right now that doesnt have a feature for instance/domain blocking user level kinds of screws this up.
There is no technical way for the user to make this decision as data gets federated across instance databases, not users' browsers. I do run my own, which is what enables me to make this decision, and anyone agreeing with it is welcome to come along.
When you say that there is no technical way, you sre referring to users not being able to block instances right?
If it's that I don't think it is that difficult to implement, Mastodon already allows for that. And also the app "connect for lemmy" in its last update has given the option to block instances user level, I don't really know yet if it blocks all users from that indtance from appearing or only communities as I haven't tested it yet.
Regardless to say, if we can get the appropriate tools this definitely could be a decision for users to take, if we make it so that they can completely block any and all content coming from a big instance.
A user blockin visibility of content is very different from that content not being federated.
It already happened. They sent their emails just in the middle of the Reddit migration. According to Foucault, powerful individuals use psychiatry, psychoanalysis, sociology, and social sciences to “discipline bodies and minds and make them obedient and submissive”. He called this concept “biopower”. For example, my most read blog post (which is French-speaking) details how it works in the scope of digital abuse and I've only started it two months ago, with almost 500 views on this one alone; it has 6 references and I've found other dispositives of power since.
There's no reason to give them the benefit of doubt over not conducting experiments on unconsenting subjects precisely to drive us mad and (1) make instances defederate, (2) put large Mastodon instance admins under pressure and encourage them to defect, (3) cap the Reddit migration.
Facebook has probably exerced biopower without even starting its #Threads app. It was only a first strike and we can only expect more to come and damage control, especially by moving to Bonfire Networks ASAP and develop a culture of deescalating conflicts. Kinda difficult with so many abuse survivors here – Mastodon users are first and foremost Twitter “refugees”, and not only does Twitter abuse its users, it also monetizes real-life abuse. (Its addictive character can be used as an illusion of solidarity as part of a “flight” coping mechanism, and how do you max out this illusion? Through moral judgements (gossiping). This especially makes sense in the context of a deliberate scarcity in attention, to put its users in concurrence, also leading to conflictual relationships. And so on.)