this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
1088 points (91.6% liked)

Technology

60087 readers
2102 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 203 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (57 children)

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 164 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (14 children)

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 42 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

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.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] somePotato@sh.itjust.works 105 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Meta has no interest in being part of the fediverse, it only wants to eliminate any posible competition.

The usual MO of buying the competitors isn't posible on the fediverse, so the way to do it is embrace, extend and extinguish

Defederating is important because is Metastasis is allowed in the fediverse it will consume the fediverse, and then we'll be right back at the corporate social media we're trying to break away from, with the surveillance, ads and nazis being welcome as long as it's profitable

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (12 children)

is Metastasis is allowed in the fediverse it will consume the fediverse

How?

I've seen the article about Google and XMPP, but I don't agree with its analysis. It wasn't easy to find service providers offering XMPP accounts to the public in 2004. I do not believe that Google embraced, extended, and extinguished a thriving ecosystem; there never was a thriving XMPP ecosystem.

There is a thriving ecosystem for federated microblogging, and federated discussions. While I'm sure Meta would like us to join their service, I'm not sure how allowing their users to interact with us will have that effect, nor how blocking that communication protects against it.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Utterly idiotic.

Facebook has for 20 years proven time and time again that it cannot be trusted and it is not beneficial for Internet users.

Yet still dumbarse cry over how mean we are to not want them here.

Get this through your fucking head people, Facebook does not have your best intentions at heart. You exist in this space purely for them to exploit. And they will find a way to do so here because that is their whole existence as a company.

I don't know why. They “trust me” Dumb fucks.

  • Mark Zuckerberg
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 38 points 1 year ago (8 children)

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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] takeda@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago (13 children)

It is not dumb. Thinking that this time it will be different is dumb:

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

When this was happening I was a huge proponent of Google, and Google Talk, recommending everyone I knew to switch to it, because Jabber with the help of Google will remove monopoly from AIM, MSN, YIM etc.

Google fucking killed the network and I contributed to it (maybe not in a significant way, but I still feel very bitter about it)

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Alto@kbin.social 27 points 1 year ago (5 children)

The super cool thing is that you're more than welcome to start your own instance where they don't block it. Or move to an existing one. Because you know, the entire point is that instance admins are allowed to run their instance how they see fit.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] TheHobbyist@lemmy.zip 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] LWD@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago (5 children)

If we let corperate avithilea gain a foothold they'll EEE us. Learn from history, Meta's not doing this for our sake

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (46 replies)
[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 68 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] phillaholic@lemm.ee 64 points 1 year ago (8 children)

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.

[–] sir_reginald@lemmy.world 170 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (47 children)

I'd argue the system is working quite well, every individual and/or community has the liberty to choose what to do about Meta.

That's what federation is all about, no central power taking decisions in behalf of everyone else.

load more comments (47 replies)
[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 45 points 1 year ago (12 children)

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.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (8 children)

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

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] archchan@lemmy.ml 58 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Metal_Zealot@lemmy.ml 52 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

I left Facebook to get away from the brain rot. Please don't bring their demographic to spread here.

Allowing threads to federate is like allowing a virus to enter the system.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 52 points 1 year ago (6 children)

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".

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Engywuck@lemm.ee 50 points 1 year ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] voidMainVoid@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Could somebody explain what "fedipact" means?

[–] Sanyanov@lemmy.world 62 points 1 year ago (5 children)

An organized group of fediverse admins all united at not federating with Meta, i.e. against federation and also united in this goal

https://fedipact.online/

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] rainerloeten@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago (16 children)

Someone should make a post about why blocking Threads is good and why it's not to be confused with gate keeping. If not properly communicated, this could look very badly for the uninitiated and they're not to blame.

Some people of course have an educated opinion against blocking, but many presumably don't know the reasons behind it.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] SeedyOne@lemm.ee 32 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Handy site to check your instances thread-blocking status.

https://fedipact.veganism.social/?v=2

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago (4 children)

What is the share of users that those 41% have?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] FlavoredButtHair@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What's wrong with threads? I'm out of the loop.

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 90 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

Threads is Meta, one of the largest corporate enshitifiers on the internet - the crap most of us fled from that landed us in the fediverse in the first place.

...it's userbase is a relative ocean compared to the fediverse's drop, so the immediate concern is being able to moderate the tsunami of submissions; the long term concern is that things go peachy at first and the fediverse becomes so intertwined with Meta that it becomes functionally dependent on it... and then Meta decides to pull the plug, effectively destroying the parts of the fediverse that didn't defederate right out of the gate. This is called "EEE" or "embrace, extend, extinguish" as others have mentioned in this thread. It's a shitty thing bigger tech can do to destroy budding competition before it has a chance to become actual competition. Google has a history of it, and a lot of folks here naively think Meta will for some reason handle things more ethically.

[–] FlavoredButtHair@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

Ok yea, fuck Meta and Facebook.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Beelzebob@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

It's owned by meta/facebook

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Weird middle ground here. I kind of wish that 1 communities FROM threads were blocked, and 2 we had an active dev fund for ad blockers. I'm glad to have threads users come here and add to our communities personally.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Phegan@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

How do I know if my ~~insurance~~ instance blocked threads

[–] JimboDHimbo@lemmy.ca 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] qaz@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This metric seems kind of meaningless if it doesn't account for the size of the user base

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›