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

      It’s worth pointing out that the wiki article lists several examples of Microsoft using this approach but I wouldn’t class many of them as successful.

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

        Not only was it not very successful, it’s an old outdated Microsoft playbook from the 90s/early 00s and was targeted at closed source competitors and freeware, not open source software where you can just fork out a separate version.

        By all means block Meta instances if you want, but they have 3 billion users, they definitely don’t give a shit about a “competitor” with a few hundred thousand users. If simply the presence of a corporation in the Fediverse is enough to destroy it, then it wasn’t going to last long anyways. It’s embarassing that “embrace, extend, extinguish” caught on around here just because it’s a catchy alliteration.

        • redcalcium@c.calciumlabs.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          By all means block Meta instances if you want, but they have 3 billion users, they definitely don’t give a shit about a “competitor” with a few hundred thousand users.

          If they don’t give a shit then why do they add federation feature at all? It doesn’t make sense.

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

            Right now it’s only supported for Instagram accounts right? So slap in ActivityPub and you’ve got an already working way to extend your app. It’s easy, it’s fast development, and it’s cheap. It makes tons of sense.

            Also, Meta and the rest of FAANG are a company of a bunch of nerds with a history of open sourcing software. This isn’t some crazy play, this is completely normal for them.

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

          Let me offer a rebuttal. The fact that this playbook even exists and is well-known is a cause for concern. Yes, Microsoft’s campaign wasn’t very successful, but that doesn’t mean Meta won’t try or learn from Microsoft’s mistakes. I ask: is the probability of this happening non-zero, and if so, is it lower than you’re comfortable with? For me, and many others here, that answer is no.

          Moreover, this is a greater problem: Meta is well-known and has practically infinite marketing budget. They can spin their app as the de facto, causing many people to lose control of their data. By association, some people will blame the Fediverse and not Meta. Defederating signals that we are not willing to participate with them and tells potential Fediverse users that they will not be able to engage with us—and whatever they decide, we cannot impact more.

          The crux of my argument is risk management. Defederated is a conservative measure to prevent possible issues in the future.

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

            Honestly this is just pure paranoia because nobody has given a solid reason as to why they would give a single shit about the few hundred thousand users here. Your only argument is “well it exists, so maaaybe they’ll use it but better” which has no basis. As for losing control of your data, you have no control of your data here. It’s public information. Any person, corporation, computer literate cat, etc can already scrape everything you post here. Don’t mistake anonymity for data privacy.

            Like I said, block em, defederate, whatever measures you want to take are an option, but for the love of god let’s just stop parroting nonsense at eachother because it sounds clever. I came here to get away from reddit culture.

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

              I just wanted to say, I am by no means technical but your position is exactly what I was thinking, if an open source project can’t survive when it’s competitors start using it, then it’s never going to survive. The whole point is for it to be interoperable, resilient, and antifragile, and there are plenty of open source projects that achieved that. Competitors switching over to open source is a natural progression of any open source project if one assumes it is successful.

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

          Exactly. Which is why I believe that all this fearmongering is because of Meta’s reputation (rightfully so) rather than because Meta actually has a plan to destroy the fediverse. And it’s not the like the fediverse can be actually destroyed, people can always start new instances at any time.

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

            My take was that most people 1) don’t want Meta/Facebook spam - low effort memes, propaganda, etc. and 2) don’t want their content to be used by Meta. The former seems pretty easy - just defederate and you don’t see any of their crap. The second is sort of a gray area… Whether or not you are diametrically opposed to Meta/Facebook or not, once you post your content to a public site, it’s available. I haven’t been here long, but defederation seems to work both ways, so FB would have to scrape content from known instances to get that content unless I’m mistaken.

            FB could smoke any instance by DDOSing scrapes whether intended or otherwise, but once you post your data on a public forum, Meta could theoretically use it.

            But to your comment - I don’t see what starting a new instance would do for anyone for #2. Any new instance is discoverable by nature, so FB can come knocking at any time for content whether you defederate or not.

            • app_priori@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago
              1. As if Lemmy currently isn’t overrun with low effort memes? Have you seen all those cans of beans running amok here?
              2. I imagine there are many parties already scraping content from the fediverse as we speak - that’s the nature of public web content.
            • Lemmino@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              As far as (1) goes, 90% of the content on Lemmy is just a Lemmy circlejerk, the remaining 10% is memes. What influx of “low effort content” could possibly make the discussions on Lemmy worse than they already are?

              As far as (2) goes, you realize your data on Lemmy is open to everyone to scrape, not just Meta? Every single one of your upvotes is public.

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

      It looks like articles today are saying that Meta is delaying integrating ActivityPub at launch.

      That said, I’m not seeing how we get to the last E, extinguish. By its very nature, ActivityPub is decentralized to avoid total control. So even if Meta embraces the technology and wants to monetize it (because capitalism, of course), extending ActivityPub would (hypothetically) be open source - or they would fork it, diverging and making their version closed, and otherwise not function in full with other ActivityPub instances (like with kbin, Lemmy, and Mastodon). Without buying the platform from the developers in full, I don’t see how ActivityPub or the greater Fediverse dies. And I could just be missing something obvious, so if you can explain how we get there, I would really like to hear and understand.

      I guess the only way I could see it is if Threads got so popular that people literally stopped using the other apps - but I also don’t see that happening, because anyone already using stuff like Mastodon are using it because Twitter, Facebook, etc, suck ass and they’ve moved away from sites like that.

      EDIT: Thanks to the one person that actually replied, I saw I was on the right track at the end, but failed to see the obvious (as I assumed).

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

        It’s hard to predict but the extinguish part would come from bigger non-Threads instances implementing compatibility with Thread-only extensions (in the interest of their users, or for money) and fragmenting the community. Threads then becomes the defacto ActivityPub standard. Maybe some instances stay true to the standard but with extremely reduced communities because now they can’t see what other instances are publishing. So now you have to decide between your ideals and your social network. At best, you’re back to square 0.

        • Hotzilla@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It happens in the extend part.

          Large corporation will have much more resources, they will implement features and refactoring, which small open source teams do not have capability to implement. They will start pulling users because they support features that other do not.

          This also means that they will start getting control.

          And then finally they just cut the communication, and split the community. All the way they can claim to be working “for the community”

  • Cras@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unpopular opinion but defederating Meta is a terrible idea. What are people thinking will happen? Allow them to federate and you’ll have mastodon users able to view and interact with posts from Threads without needing to be concerned about ads or tracking, without giving over any more control of privacy than they would to any other fediverse instance, and without needing to possess accounts homed within the Meta infrastructure.

    Defederate them, and anyone who wants to interact with anyone on threads will most likely need to maintain a presence on both and handover more personal data to Meta than they otherwise would.

    Defederating is actively hostile to fediverse users.

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

        Was about to say just that. I’ll love to reject people that only follows big corpos.

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

          It isn’t the people. It’s just if I already decided not to use Facebook or twitter. Why would I get back into bed with the devil on an experimental product?

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

      They have also already declared that if you federate with them, your instance has to abide by their code of conduct, so they already throwing their weight around.

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re acting like there’s only two situations: The entire Fediverse defederates with them, or the entire Fediverse federates with them. That’s not the case.

      I, personally, do not want to interact with anyone using Threads, because Meta has a proven history of poor moderation and of manipulating the narrative for political gain on Facebook and I see no reason to think they won’t do the same here. I am not the only one who holds this opinion. Those of us who feel this way can use instances that defederate with them, and have our way.

      If you want to interact with them, you can maintain an account on an instance that does federate with them. You do not need to have a Threads account, nor does anyone else.

    • ToastyMedic@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Strongly disagree here, better to cast them down now while the chance is there. No mercy or quarter provided to Meta considering their track record.

      If anyone is foolish enough to go there, let them, but do not drag us towards them.

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

      The idea is that at first threads.net will seem “normal”, like all the other fediverses

      Then they start adding features that either break against other servers, or straight up aren’t supported, making threads.net seem more enticing just because all the neat features aren’t on the other sites.

      Think how Internet Explorer killed Netscape with all the Page Load errors caused by ActiveX, yet everyone wanted ActiveX sites.

      Once they’ve walked through the path of least resistance and grabbed the bulk of the traffic, they just defederate from everyone.

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

        Yep - best option is to defederate them well before they gain traction & start creating problem by not contributing back to the protocol in a way that benefits everyone.

        I think after the community got burned by Microsoft & then google we’re finally learning.

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

        Couldn’t any instance or app do this already? Like #peertube does videos in a way that isn’t necessarily fully federated with #mastodon. We get partial functionality everywhere and some places will have some extra things. If it is popular enough, then add it to the standard and let everyone who wants it add the functionality.

    • Risk@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      People are concerned about Facebook/Meta trying to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish ActivityPub - if I’ve understood correctly.

      • e-ratic@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        People keep saying EEE as if that’s a point in and of itself without really explaining how in this instance

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

          If they become so ubiquitous that all you see are Threads messages, all they have to do is start adding their own extensions to ActivityPub and degrade the experience of everyone who is not using their app.

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

            What kinds of extensions should the typical activitypub user be worried about? I don’t care if Meta adds payments or virtual avatars or whatever–if the core functionality of the Threads app is simple microblogging, it should be perfectly interoperable with that side of the fediverse.

            The more likely effect IMO (if Meta holds to their word on enabling federation on their side) is that other large social media companies (e.g. reddit, twitter) will feel pressured to federate and that will make the fediverse better, not worse.

            My account is on kbin.social but I’m working on getting kbin self hosted. When I do, I’ll absolutely be federating with Threads whether or not kbin.social does.

            • Risk@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              A cool post pops up in your feed. You click it. You are met with an overlay that says “Sorry, this post isn’t compatible with your browser. Please log in to Threads.”

              Over half your feed are Threads posts.

              Speculative example.

    • Reclipse@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some instances will federate and some will block them. It doesn’t have to be all one or the other.

  • teri@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Spontaneous idea of how to use copyright law for keeping Meta out of the Fediverse (more for fun):

    Introduction: Parts of the Fediverse, including Mastodon, are software licensed under the APGL license. This license is a great choice because it forces the ones running the software to grant users access to the source code. GPL for example would allow to run proprietary services based on GPL code. The AGPL does not. Companies like Meta and Google will likely not use AGPL code because it might force them to also publish their proprietary systems behind the scenes. However, this does not help much for keeping the Fediverse save. They simply implement their own software which will not be open source.

    Therefore we may need another approach. Defederating is the simplest and in my opinion currently the best. It’s easy and keeps people in control.

    However, there could be some ‘automatic’ approach using copyright law. It’s a hack which allows to use existing law to regulate the way instances can federate.:

    • instances would Federate only if the other side can provide a certain piece of information called X
    • X is protected by copyright law, therefore by default, instances are not allowed to provide X
    • However, X is released under a license which for permits to copy and distribute X under certain conditions
    • The conditions allow to tune who can legally federate
    • Conditions could be
      • The server software must be AGPL licensed
      • The instance must not be owned by a company with a certain amount of annual revenue

    Open question is, who owns the copyright of X?

  • ShankedMyJengaShip@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    My first reaction is this sounds like a great way to onboard more folks into the fediverse - but is this a perhaps a paradox of intolerance? Does Meta as a corporate entity have a natural intolerance to the freeness and openness of the fediverse, and if so, does it need to be violently rejected?

    • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t understand why this is even a question. Is the tragedy of the commons not taught in american education? Is Land Clearance(one example of many linked) and Enclosure not taught? (Serious question open to anyone, I do not know what history is taught outside major european countries)

      This is essential basic history to understand how land developed from being a collectively worked upon thing, decentralised, owned by everybody that worked on it, into something that was owned by a tiny tiny number of people so that they could exploit it to the maximum degree.

      Decentralisation is the creation of a commons. The goal of corporations is centralisation of power and monopoly. They are at complete polar opposites in goals. The entire point of the fediverse in the first place is to destroy the centralised power of web corporations who took what was originally a digital commons populated by thousands of sites and communities and through a form of digital enclosure turned it into a space controlled by a handful of companies.

      Learn history other than the popular military shit folks. It is essential in analysing what affects you.

      • cstine@lemmy.uncomfortable.business
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        As a product of American eduation, I can say resolutely that no, that was absolutely not taught.

        Of course, this is partially because American education sucks and partially because we never HAD common land here: everything was privately owned, after it was stolen from the people who already lived here, and then most of it had people who had no say in the matter enslaved to work on it for the people who stole the land.

        Of course, this is ALSO not really taught, because it’d make people feel sad and make the US look kinda bad, so it’s always talked about but you get like, a week of coverage on both subjects, at most.

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

          It’s all but against the law in Florida (maybe other states as well?) to teach that aspect of history. Wouldn’t want the white kids to feel guilty for being white… because they know about things that happened in the past.

      • areyouevenreal@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The whole point of the tradgedy of the commons is that publically owned finite resources don’t work. You’ve completely misunderstood the point. If you’re following that logic then centralization, ownership, and control is the only answer.

        Of course none of that applies, because what is the finite resource here? Both Meta and the fediverse can co-exist without destroying each other for want of servers or network bandwidth. The only real finite resource here is human attention - in which case federating with meta should be a good thing. This is because it increases the amount of content available on both platforms with the less popular platform benefiting the most.

        • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Christ.

          They do not aim to coexist. They aim to enclose.

          This is incredible levels of naivity. Like, literally completely and totally oblivious to how profit seeking works and what behaviours it creates.

          And the tragedy of the commons was a crock of shit made by racist eugenicist colonial-minded fuckbags, that’s the entire point of teaching it, as a way of understanding the kind of utter bullshit that gets spread when landgrabbers(in the modern day the corporations) want to go grabbing. This is why education is important, without it people go reading a wiki article and come to these kinds of nonsensical conclusions.

          • areyouevenreal@lemmy.fmhy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I didn’t read an article about it, I watched a YouTube video about it from a science and maths youtuber originally. You also didn’t elude to this in your first comment at all. I was actually going to reply to you telling you why it’s a bad concept once I learned it’s history.

            I also don’t get why your complaining to me about education. I don’t control what gets taught in the UK (my home country), I just work with what I have.

            I still don’t see how it applies to this situation in any way.

            Edit: also your username has Lenin in it. Are you a fucking tankie?

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

    So we’re all pro federation and decentralization, until we aren’t… I think this is a very preemptive and paranoid measure, but thankfully it will work out just as the technology was built for, some will block, some wont, everyone will make their choice, and be happy in their corner of the internet.

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

      Ever heard of Mastodon blocklists? I mean defederation has been happening for a while.

      But I think that’s fine. Instances should have every right to block instances that they disagree with.

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

      Same reason I am highly critical of Jack Dorsey’s BlueSky and its attempt at rolling out a separate protocol. The last thing we need is for the Fediverse to be fragmented into a dozen protocols that do things ever-so-slightly differently and prevent network convergence.

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

      You can only do that if you’re an admin. The post is for those on an instance that doesn’t/won’t defederate from Threads.

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

    I just won’t be apart of any instance that chooses to be federated with Meta. There are many people like me, and I hope kbin and most lemmy instance owners are aware of this.

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

    If Meta is running a fediverse instance, they’re doing it for money. Sure, I might be able to block Meta-sourced content from reaching me, but that doesn’t prevent me-sourced content from reaching Meta - where they can monetize it.

    Show me how to do that, and I’m on it like white on rice.

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

      This is exactly my concern, I don’t want my online activity to become another revenue stream for meta. If they can put ads next to our posts then we’re back to working for free for the billionaires.

  • f4te@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    i’ll join the voices saying this is bad for the fediverse, and bad for users in general. there are LOTS of normie users who are joining threads who will be shut off from learning about all the cool other servers if everyone blocks them. this will mean users who want to interact with them need to sign up on Threads, which is what we don’t want.

    what we want is that users on Threads see other servers, learn that they’re better, and migrate over.

    don’t block Threads, show them how much better we are.