I strongly encourage instance admins to defederate from Facebook/Threads/Meta.

They aren’t some new, bright-eyed group with no track record. They’re a borderline Machiavellian megacorporation with a long and continuing history of extremely hostile actions:

  • Helping enhance genocides in countries
  • Openly and willingly taking part in political manipulation (see Cambridge Analytica)
  • Actively have campaigned against net neutrality and attempted to make “facebook” most of the internet for members of countries with weaker internet infra - directly contributing to their amplification of genocide (see the genocide link for info)
  • Using their users as non-consenting subjects to psychological experiments.
  • Absolutely ludicrous invasions of privacy - even if they aren’t able to do this directly to the Fediverse, it illustrates their attitude.
  • Even now, they’re on-record of attempting to get instance admins to do backdoor discussions and sign NDAs.

Yes, I know one of the Mastodon folks have said they’re not worried. Frankly, I think they’re being laughably naive >.<. Facebook/Meta - and Instagram’s CEO - might say pretty words - but words are cheap and from a known-hostile entity like Meta/Facebook they are almost certainly just a manipulation strategy.

In my view, they should be discarded as entirely irrelevant, or viewed as deliberate lies, given their continued atrocious behaviour and open manipulation of vast swathes of the population.

Facebook have large amounts of experience on how to attack and astroturf social media communities - hell I would be very unsurprised if they are already doing it, but it’s difficult to say without solid evidence ^.^

Why should we believe anything they say, ever? Why should we believe they aren’t just trying to destroy a competitor before it gets going properly, or worse, turn it into yet another arm of their sprawling network of services, via Embrace, Extend, Extinguish - or perhaps Embrace, Extend, Consume would be a better term in this case?

When will we ever learn that openly-manipulative, openly-assimilationist corporations need to be shoved out before they can gain any foothold and subsume our network and relegate it to the annals of history?

I’ve seen plenty of arguments claiming that it’s “anti-open-source” to defederate, or that it means we aren’t “resilient”, which is wrong ^.^:

  • Open source isn’t about blindly trusting every organisation that participates in a network, especially not one which is known-hostile. Threads can start their own ActivityPub network if they really want or implement the protocol for themselves. It doesn’t mean we lose the right to kick them out of most - or all - of our instances ^.^.
  • Defederation is part of how the fediverse is resilient. It is the immune system of the network against hostile actors (it can be used in other ways, too, of course). Facebook, I think, is a textbook example of a hostile actor, and has such an unimaginably bad record that anything they say should be treated as a form of manipulation.

Edit 1 - Some More Arguments

In this thread, I’ve seen some more arguments about Meta/FB federation:

  • Defederation doesn’t stop them from receiving our public content:
    • This is true, but very incomplete. The content you post is public, but what Meta/Facebook is really after is having their users interact with content. Defederation prevents this.
  • Federation will attract more users:
    • Only if Threads makes it trivial to move/make accounts on other instances, and makes the fact it’s a federation clear to the users, and doesn’t end up hosting most communities by sheer mass or outright manipulation.
    • Given that Threads as a platform is not open source - you can’t host your own “Threads Server” instance - and presumably their app only works with the Threads Server that they run - this is very unlikely. Unless they also make Threads a Mastodon/Calckey/KBin/etc. client.
    • Therefore, their app is probably intending to make itself their user’s primary interaction method for the Fediverse, while also making sure that any attempt to migrate off is met with unfamiliar interfaces because no-one else can host a server that can interface with it.
    • Ergo, they want to strongly incentivize people to stay within their walled garden version of the Fediverse by ensuring the rest remains unfamiliar - breaking the momentum of the current movement towards it. ^.^
  • We just need to create “better” front ends:
    • This is a good long-term strategy, because of the cycle of enshittification.
    • Facebook/Meta has far more resources than us to improve the “slickness” of their clients at this time. Until the fediverse grows more, and while they aren’t yet under immediate pressure to make their app profitable via enshittification and advertising, we won’t manage >.<
    • This also assumes that Facebook/Meta won’t engage in efforts to make this harder e.g. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish/Consume, or social manipulation attempts.
    • Therefore we should defederate and still keep working on making improvements. This strategy of “better clients” is only viable in combination with defederation.

PART 2 (post got too long!)

  • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    387
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    Defed every corporation. McDonald’s starts an instance? Fuck off and fix your ice cream machine. Gabe Newell starts a Steam instance? No Gabe, go make half life 3. Make all these suits federate each other and see if anyone wants to talk on their shit.

    • sapient [they/them]@infosec.pubOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      230
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Meta in particular has a specific record of social manipulation, which is why I think defederating them specifically is so important. Even if we collectively have mixed feelings on corporate instances in general, social media companies, especially those like Facebook, have a specific and direct record of manipulating people and the population nya. Facebook/Meta in particular, is probably the worst of any of them.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes, reputation is very important. The cluster of people known as Meta has proven it is nefarious at best.

        It’s good to consider the case-by-case basis instead of just making general rules.

        Like if Lowes wanted to make an instance I wouldn’t worry much about its corporate influence. But Meta is actually an evil organization.

        (Though their React docs are some of the best docs I’ve ever read)

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

        It’s strange how Mastodon is so willingly letting them in. Fishy… Fishy and hairy. Like a fish with some nice bangs. Maybe a mullet. A little mustache too, recently brushed with a little mustache brush.

      • Bushwhack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, they aren’t fucking wrong. Half life 3 has a federated communication system built into multiplayer? Go do it Gabe.

    • zos_kia@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m right there with you. I can already foresee that their apps will be prioritizing monetized users like content creators and everything in there will be a transaction of some sort. Who cares, you just have to block their instances and go about your merry way.

    • EyesEyesBaby@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve never had any problems at McDonald’s with their ice cream / milkshake machines in Europe. Maybe the US simply gets the faulty machines?

      • Ilikecheese@vlemmy.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a pretty well established anecdote that most of the time a McDonalds tells you the ice cream machine is broken, it’s because they’ve already cleaned it for the night and if they use it again they’ll need to reclean it. It’s easier to say it’s broken rather than make one dessert and then have to reclean it all over again.

        • danielton@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          30
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Bullshit. I know everybody loves a good “lazy employees” story, but American machines are designed to break down constantly so Taylor gets repair revenue from McDonald’s franchise owners.

          I used to work at McDonald’s and got tired of the constant accusations from customers. Johnny Harris made an excellent video on this topic.

          I know a good number of McDonald’s employees are lazy, but that damn machine was the bane of my existence when I was a manager. It would just randomly decide not to work for the day and we had to call Taylor.

          • 💡dim@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I was a manager at a McDonald’s In the UK for five years. Can honestly say our shake/I’ve cream machine never once broke down.

            We never took it off early for the nightly clean though, that only took a matter of minutes.

            But the regular deap clean, we took it off for that, usually a Monday or Tuesday night as they were quiet, and we were straight up with customers and said it was being cleaned

            • danielton@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Most McDonald’s in the UK are corporate owned, not franchised, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they ordered more reliable machines there. The corporate owned locations here in the States always seem to have ice cream as well.

              I worked for a privately-owned location and that damn machine would randomly say “FREEZER LOCK” and refuse to work until Taylor could come to reset it, and of course the owner didn’t want us to rack up the repair bills. Johnny Harris and Louis Rossmann covered this on their channels, which I appreciate because it did feel like the machines were intended to break down all the time.

      • boeman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        The company that maintains the machines has a contractually enforced monopoly over the franchisee’s. This means it’s impossible to get parts or fix the machines outside of them doing it.

      • YarRe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a giant drm manager. Popular, useful, sure, but the day it dies all your content will go poof.

        • Dudewitbow@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Isnt that based on the assumption that Valves public comment about removing the drm in the case they go under is a lie. It becomes a trust issue then, and to the public view, many put trust in them.

          • YarRe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They have no reason to honor that, and are a corporation. I don’t consider that binding or realistic.

            • Dudewitbow@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              There are many things that happen for “no reason”. Its fully a trust issue if you dont think it would happen.

              • YarRe@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                OK. You’re welcome to trust in anything you like. I believe contracts, not promises.

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

              Yeah – it should be in writing with the customers (ToS?) and every contract Valve signs with game developers for it to be something that can actually be performed.

              We will need the judicial system to force Valve to remove the DRM.

            • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Should Note that if a game isn’t on that list, that doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t DRM free. For example “Rain world” is not on that list and it is not required to launch it through Steam. So this list is by no means exhaustive.

          • rbits@lemmy.fmhy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, not in my experience. Some games do exist that do that, but that’s the choice of the developer.

          • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I like itch, but it’s no steam killer. We need a way to somehow own our digital games in a way that is not centralized to one marketplace.

              • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Disintermediation would be nice; More of my money going directly into the hands of game developers instead of executives. Also, people who own games should be able to resell them. Can’t do that with centralized platforms. A benefit of decentralized game ownership would be that the developer could be cut into the resale of their games, which shifts the incentive to a more long-term view. A game could be something that is supported by the “used” market, and therefore has a reason to invest in long-term value. No more drive to keep on reinventing the wheel and releasing new games every year, just keep on making the existing game better.

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

                  Oh, nice response, I want to be optimistic and see in the future more and more descentralization

            • Wilker@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              i think nothing beats literally getting the zip file with all the contents of the game with no middleware like GOG employs. to decentralize the store further requires the devs to at least manage their own website hosting, domains, ownership status accounts for updates. the only step available beyond that is the payment methods, and i don’t think there’s any viable solution to be done in that case besides having more companies like Stripe and Paypal.

              in that sense, Itch is handling things pretty good for devs so far,

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

                The main thing I’m for is improved ownership rights, and currently GOG is the best of them. The only downside with it is that you can’t sell it on when you’re done, like old games in physical media. When digital media has none of digital media’s drawbacks, then I’ll leave off about the potential of NFTs.

                • Wilker@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  problem there is that anti-drm and ownership of a license to download and run software don’t combine while financially viable to the stores. aside from the additional problem of having to manage inventories, trades and everything that happens to break those systems, “owning” the license and allowing to sell to someone else doesn’t do much if you don’t employ a DRM to enforce the make-believe of you pretending you’re monetarily compensating a physical larbor of transferring a given copy of a media, people will share things with each other before you can blink and not care where it comes from so long as it runs and it’s clean, specially in places where people won’t pay for games instead of food. only reason CSGO skins works on Steam as the original NFT system is because there’s servers to enforce what people get to see you holding and what you don’t own. and allowing for transferring games between accounts without a DRM is not something you’ll ever see any big company doing under the liability of being accused of promoting “piracy”.

      • ilikekeyboards@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Right now we’re losing tons of information after snapchat bought and deleted the gyffcaf website.

        Now imagine losing all games when Gabe dies and the new patron loses the company to a newfound addiction to whatever

    • DarkMatter_contract@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I dont think mastodon would, but i think lemmy kbin would. The target audience is different, one is twitter and the other is reddit like. I dont think twitter user hate fb as much as we do.

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

          This is an extremely weird ass take to have. Why would the average user give a shit?

          Compared to most problems people have, the intricacies of social media platforms is not high on a lot of people’s list. They just go where the content is.

          What a very insufferable opinion to have lol.

          Like god damn, I knew that the early adopters will have the hardcore with em, but some of you guys need to relax.

      • Franklin's Beard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nah, that’s a prequel. What everyone wants is a conclusion to the cliffhanger that the current Half-Life story ended on. Good game though!

        • Molecular0079@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          But…it doesn’t have to be a whole-ass lifestyle, even right now with the current state of VR. Even with an Oculus Quest 2, you just put on the headset, play an hour or so, and then put the headset down like a normal person.

          The marketing teams at Meta and Apple want to market it as a lifestyle because that’s the only way they know how to promote it without going into the nerdy weeds of VR game design, etc., but from a consumer perspective, it’s only a lifestyle if you choose to make it your lifestyle.

          • Irlut@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I do games research for a living and have access to pretty much every relevant VR headset made since the first Oculus.

            VR is very much a gimmick. There is no killer app or feature, and the closest thing we get to one are exergames like Beat Saber. Games like HL: Alyx don’t really offer enough novelty to make people invest several thousand dollars. Similarly, virtual desktops are neat but really don’t offer any tangible benefits compared to a large monitor to make up for the added discomfort of having to wear a VR headset. The Snow Crash-style metaverse is and always has been absolute bullshit. It’s just a less convenient version of the metaverse we already have.

            VR has some potential to create cool embodied experiences, but the benefits so far are so slight that the technology is looking a lot like 3D TV and HD-DVD: technically impressive, no meaningful improvement in the holistic user experience. Hence, it remains a gimmick.

            • Hikiru@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              There are multiple games that wouldn’t be the same without VR. A Township Tale, Gorilla Tag, Echo VR. None of these would be nearly as fun without VR. The biggest issue with VR is probably the lack of some more linear story driven AAA games that many people are used to. And you don’t need to invest several thousand dollars for VR. Stand-alone VR with the quest has been a thing for years

              • Irlut@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re kind of making my point for me here. The games that exist for VR don’t really add anything that didn’t already exist but with less convenient controls. A Township Tale is fundamentally just an MMO in VR, and we have already have dozens of MMOs that are easier to play. Similarly, we have a ton of story-based games on other platforms that work perfectly well. VR as a medium doesn’t really do anything for the gaming experience in those cases.

                Games that make use of the inherently different interaction modalities of VR, like Beat Saber and Gorilla Tag, show some promise in terms of new ways of playing games. That kind of interaction is really interesting and brings something new to the table. Unfortunately, they’re also effortful to play and as such are generally difficult to play for extended periods of time. To some extent they all become exergames. Since they also need a fair amount of space to play there’s a certain barrier to entry for playing them.

                I think the the standalone headsets are the future of VR, mostly due to the lower instep to get started. I even own a Quest 2 that I play sometimes (admittedly mostly Beat Saber and Ragnarock). However, the standalone VR headsets are also kind of limited in terms of computational power, so there’s some competition from the casual and mobile market. The mobile (and console, and PC) platforms also don’t have the added baggage of physical excersion that comes with VR, which makes them more accessible than VR.

                Again, there really isn’t much of a case for VR beyond exergames. Games being VR can be a selling point for the true believers in VR, but for most people it’s kind of a fun experience that isn’t very meaningful.

                • Hikiru@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  A township tale is fun because of the fact that you use your hands for everything. Putting tools together, hammering nails in, fighting monsters, that’s what differentiates it from other MMOs. I don’t see a problem with VR games being physically exerting, less people sitting in a chair playing games is a good thing. In fact the physical nature of it is what makes it fun. I don’t see VR as the future of gaming or anything, I see it as another way to play. Just like I prefer keyboard and mouse for shooters and controller for platformers. The games I play in VR are games I wouldn’t like in a traditional format. The interactivity and immersion of VR is impossible to replicate in a normal game. That doesn’t mean normal games don’t have their place, they obviously do and I don’t think VR should replace them.

              • Molecular0079@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah I really wish PCVR was still alive and well instead of the stagnant industry that it currently is. I bought both a Rift S and a Quest 2 thinking that full-length story driven games were going to become a thing, but then the hardware limitations of standalone kinda killed that. Now I don’t really have any interest in buying a Quest 3 or a Vision Pro because I don’t have any faith that there’s going to be developers making those kinds of experiences anymore.

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

                  I don’t get why games can optimize for mobile hardware but can’t just give lower graphics settings on PC for some reason. Maybe stand-alone wouldn’t have been such a big thing if they had done that

            • Molecular0079@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Games like HL: Alyx don’t really offer enough novelty to make people invest several thousand dollars.

              I have to disagree with this statement. Having played through that game multiple times, it just provides a level of immersion that no other VR game has touched yet. Heck, from an immersion perspective, it pretty much beats every game I’ve ever played in my life.

              The problem with the VR industry is that so few games approach HL: Alyx’s level of immersion. Of course, it’d be hard to justify the $300-$400 asking price. VR devs are all content on making these simple arcade style games with simple graphics that can run on the Quest 2.

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

                The problem is the size of the potential player base. A VR headset for $300-500 (and that’s on the low end) is already a big ask for one game, but then you also need a gaming PC. To get the full fat immersive experience you’ll need a fairly beefy PC (3070 or better, 11th gen Intel or 3000 series AMD CPU etc) and a Valve Index ($1000 iirc). The costs add up very quickly, and that’s a huge barrier to entry for a lot of people. That’s also why the Quest 2 is such a common target for development: it’s relatively more affordable and as a result has a much bigger install base.

                There’s also a whole slew of physical space issues with being tied to a computer that the standalone headsets solves, but that’s a broader argument beyond the cost of the headset itself.

                • Molecular0079@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  A lot of these issues can be solved by remote streaming. The full fat immersive experience becomes far more manageable if instead of trying to cram a beefy Snapdragon SoC into a complicated headset, you just make the headset be a dedicated streaming device and then focus on bringing the price down to $200. Think Quest 2 but all it needs have is enough logic to do tracking and video decoders to process video streams.

                  a big ask for one game

                  That’s just a chicken and egg problem though. We don’t have a good library of PCVR titles so people find it hard to justify buying a PCVR headset. Nobody makes PCVR titles because they think no one’s buying the headset, etc. I feel like a lot of people think PCVR won’t work because the overall setup is too expensive. However, I think there’s enough PC players who already have a gaming PC who would gladly drop an extra $200 on another peripheral if the game library was there.

          • BNE@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not for owners, for sure - but for prospective ones? The catalogue of possible games/uses is a bit thin for a 1k+ piece of kit… I think it would be incredible to own a HOTAS warthog but I’m not playing flying games very often right now, you know?

            If I did, I probably would because at that point I want to enjoy the kit I have. Imo, that means right now, a flight sim controller set up due my use case is a bit of a gimmick - but if I already owned it I’d seek out things to utilise it, reducing its gimmicky position in ‘the roster’.

            Gimmicky is kind of a subjective term in that way, it’s all about the individual utility offered.

            But yeah - that comment was a bit snarky, I get that too.

    • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have no love for corporations but they’re a fact of life by this point on the internet. They drive a significant about of marketing and users and they’re what make a social media platform take off (which is why Parler and Gab fell apart).

      Fediverse SHOULD be an ethical platform, but you have server admins defederating any instance that even has paid subscribers. Isn’t that going too far? Are we trying to force everyone on here into a kibbutz?

      • TechnoBabble@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        I believe the only instances that should be defederated are corporate, self-harm, profanely illegal, and political extremist instances.

        Anything further than that and the whole network is going to devolve into a series of micro echo chambers.

        Or maybe it won’t, maybe the vast and free instances will flourish while the restrictive instances die out.

        Either way, trying to control a community based on wishy washy ideology is not a good look.

        I think in these early days we’ll see a lot of power drunk admins who are too eager to push the button, just because they can.

        • spader312@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          To add to that maybe a general rule of thumb would be to defederate with any instances that go against the sustainability and self interest of the whole fediverse.

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

            Absolutely, and the actions that “go against the sustainability and self-interest of the fediverse” will need to be analyzed and codified into fediverse “law.”

            If we make specific and firm rules about what is disallowed on an instance, it makes enforcing those rules simple.

        • explodicle@local106.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Political extremism is part of how Lemmy got its start! The political center is crony capitalism, basically Facebook.

  • Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    212
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    We will never be able to compete with them for as long as they remain federated with us. We will simply have no unique value any longer. All of our development–open source. All of our content–available to the federation. He will have rightful possession of it all, everything we are.

    However, he does not have to share his development with us. He does not have to share his hardware resources with us. He does not have to limit himself to only the capabilities that we want to be added.

    He can, if absolutely necessary, buy us. One big Instance at a time.

    Our only path forward with any independence is to defederate immediately and ruthlessly. This way, we keep our content. We keep that unique contribution, that we can use as a competitor to eventually demonstrate our value to the rest of the world. That’s the only way possible for us to have any chance of eventually toppling him, instead. We must retain our unique value. We must protect our content. If he wants it, make him scrape it and repost it with bots or something.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Another option is to make migration of everything from one instance easy and let them buy whichever instances they want but let the users go somewhere else. Turn their weaponized capitalism into free money for instance admins until they wisen up and stop throwing money at it.

      Or set up the terms and services to give the instances responsibilities that must be honoured even after they get purchased by another entity such that buying them becomes unattractive. Like mandate a certain portion of the topmost parent company’s profits (along with clauses to prevent Hollywood accounting from dodging that, maybe say revenue instead of profit and all related companies instead of just the topmost) must be invested back into the fediverse and that changing the TOS to remove that requires a certain number of users to agree. Set it up so that it is designed to only work if the whole point of the entity is to host a community rather than extract profit from hosted communities.

    • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Even if we defederate with them they can still grab all the content here. Defederation just stops the flow of content from their instance to ours. Defederation just hides the comments from Threads’ users on our discussions.

      I think the real test is when they start demanding that other instances start moderating their content to comply with Facebook’s terms of service and if not then defederate and make them unable to communicate with the by-far biggest instance on the fediverse with almost all the users.

      • im stuff@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        no, defederation does not “just” do those things

        defederation refuses to give them an in to slowly make changes to the platform that will eventually give way to a centralized power dynamic over the whole fediverse

        see also: the chrome/chromium monopoly and its effect on the modern web

        • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not sure it quite works that way. They can only make changes to their platform/instance and may thus become incompatible with everyone else but it’s still up to the smaller instances wether they want to go down that road or not. They can’t really steal fediverse from us - we’d have to give it to them.

      • jayknight@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just require users to be logged in to view posts, and then limit them to seeing a few hundred every day. That should stop them from stealing the content.

      • tenth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are under the hood data that is not displayed on the site which they can scrap. FB would be broke if they only rely on the FB posts alone without all the tracking everywhere. Even your movement on the screen or where you pause on the page are tracked.

        So no they dont get all the data unless we federate them.

        • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          They can do that on Facebook because it’s their code and their platform. They can probably do that on their app and and instance too to some extent but I don’t think they can grab much more than the content of your messages and your likes if you’re on a different instance. Lemmy is open source; if there was a way to get that data we’d know about it.

      • Candelestine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        While yes, there are ways around defederation to still get to our content, that does not mean it is not better than simply giving it to them.

        Regarding their content, facebook is fucking garbage content. You actually want that? Why are you here then?

        • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not advocating for either or. Just stating the facts. Defederation in no way makes it harder for them to take content from other instances. When you post into the fediverse it’s for everyone to see. You can only control what’s coming back at you.

          • Candelestine@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, if they wanted to vacuum it up wholesale, sure. But that is not how it is usually transfered and consumed. It is generally done by users subscribing to individual communities. This is seldom done with defederated communities though, as no interaction is possible, removing the whole “social” part of social media.

            So while you are technically correct, the end result will be closer to what I describe. Unless they just copy/paste it with something not too far off from repost bots, for their own local consumption.

            If they do that, we may have to think of something else to help secure ourselves.

  • goetzit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    169
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    The craziest thing to me is that people seem to be lining up to make excuses for Meta. We learned the first week of this migration that defederating can get messy, we saw it right away with Beehaw.

    Had Beehaw defederated from the larger instances sooner, then there would have been no outrage in the community over it. But while Lemmy was seeing a lot of growth, a lot of the big communities were being made on beehaw. All of the sudden, people were unable to access these communities properly and they were PISSED.

    Guys, look around! Threads has what, 10 million users already? We have like, a hundred thousand, maybe a few hundred thousand at best? They will no doubt have huge communities formed by the time they decide they want to start federating. The ratio of Lemmy/Kbin users to threads users will be 100:1.

    If we federate with Meta we basically have no choice but to use the communities they host. People only want to use 1 community (the issue of duplicate communities is brought up daily), so they will flock to the largest one. When Meta decides they don’t want to play nice with us anymore (and they will, it is never profitable to let people access all your content completely free, and shareholders will come knocking), defederation is going to decimate whats left here. Personally I think the place would implode, and many would migrate to where the content is.

  • ubergeek77@lemmy.ubergeek77.chat
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    138
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Not only did I add threads.net to my blocked instances list, I also went scorched Earth and outright blocked Facebook’s entire IP range through my firewall. Don’t want them “accidentally” reading any data from my server ;)

    For reference, their IP range is 157.240.0.0/16:

    Edit: Actually, I might have more IPs to block:

    https://whois.arin.net/rest/org/THEFA-3/nets

  • Naberius@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    111
    ·
    1 year ago

    100% agree. I’ve been shocked at what seems like extreme naivety or willful ignorance in some of the discussions on federating with corps. Corps only want profit. People are the product at meta. They just want more product.

    There’s either a streak of loud and stupid that started up when the NDAs came to light or some of these “Facebook would never do anything bad” people are suspicious af.

    • Vamp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the Lemmy admins sides with people like zuck, which they shouldn’t because they’re literal communists I’m going to laugh so hard, internet would pretty much be fucked lol

        • Vamp@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          1 year ago

          the big difference is Lemmy and other sites got popular now as a result of people finally realizing “wow the modernized internet is pretty much complete dogshit”

          the only thing that’s been basically different is people trying and rather unsuccessfully to create an alternative to the bigger sites. 9/10 most of them have failed, but with Lemmy considering how much and how dedicated the userbase has been so far.

          My point was mostly “if Lemmy can be bought out” (which I really doubt) “then the internet is just blatantly fucked and there’s not anywhere to go period.”

          Lemmy, which I’m currently using through liftoff seems like the best solution and has a rather dedicated userbase in general. I’m excited to be here but there’s always the worry something could go wrong with it

          • astral_avocado@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            From my perspective there was nowhere to go besides disparate discord communities, until I learned Lemmy existed and it got an IV injection of life from spez screwing with reddit

  • Phil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    98
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    My gut tells me we should defed all corporate instances as a matter of policy. Our uniqueness is at jeopardy , think of threads like the borg.

    • WizzCaleeba@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Obligatory upvote for Star Trek reference That’s the beauty of individual servers, isn’t it? If you’re on an instance that doesn’t defend those corporate instances, but want to, them just move to one that does. The voices will speak.

      • Phil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        My voices say that de-fed is best and I worry that not everyone will perceive the terrible consequences of not doing so. and yay for star trek :-)

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

      In that case, could hear them at some point going, “We are the Threads. Deactivate your firewalls, surrender your instances. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your federated culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is Futile.”, to make you think on how you are going to respond to that.

  • sapient [they/them]@infosec.pubOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    91
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The post is too big for my next edit, so here is the next edit in a comment:

    Edit 2 - Clarification, Expanding on Facebook’s Behaviour, Discussion of Admin-FB Meetups

    I want to clarify the specific dangers of Meta/FB, as well as some terminology.

    Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, and Embrace, Extend, Consume

    The link I posted approximately explains EEE, but in this thread I’ve used the phrase “Embrace, Extend, Consume”, to illustrate a slightly modified form of this behaviour.

    Embrace, Extend, Consume is like Embrace, Extend, Extinguish except the end goal isn’t complete annihilation of the target. Instead of defederating at the endpoint, Meta/FB just dominates the entire standard, and anyone who steps out of line is forced into a miniscule network of others.

    They can then use this dominant position to buy out or consume large instances, or for example, force data collection features into the standard and aggressively defederate anyone else who doesn’t comply >.< - because they’re so big, most instances will comply in the service of “content”.

    Such a dominant position can even be obtained simply by sheer user mass, which Threads already has to some degree, as long as the relevant instance has large amounts of financial resources to buy out instances.

    In this way, they consume the network entirely, which doesn’t necessarily destroy the communities but essentially Borg-ifies them and renders people unable to leave their grasp.

    Facebook/Meta-Specific Threats: Information Warfare & Manipulation

    One of the major specific threats of Meta/FB in particular is their long and continued history of engaging in what essentially amounts to large-scale psychological manipulation and information warfare towards it’s various goals (money, total domination of human communication, subsuming the internet in countries where the infrastructure is still too small to resist a single corporation restricting it’s content, political manipulation, collection of ever more data, etc.), against both it’s users and non-users.

    They have well over a decade of experience in this, hundreds of times more users than us (providing good cloaking for astroturfers), and untold amounts of labour, research and other resources have been poured specifically into figuring out the most effective ways to manipulate social groups via techniques like astroturfing, algorithmic prioritization, and more sophisticated strategies I am not aware of. All backed by data from literally billions of human beings >.<

    This means that exposing the Fediverse to Facebook/Meta is essentially exposing us all to one of the most organised and sophisticated information warfare machines that has ever been created. Cutting off the connections immediately (as in the other analogy by @BreakingBad@lemmy.world) not only protects from direct EEE/EEC, but also makes it harder for Meta/Facebook to influence, dominate, and consume the conversation here, either by sheer user-mass, or by malicious information warfare (or even unintentional consequences of their algorithms), or by a combination of all of these.

    We know they are extremely malicious and willing to use these methods towards real-life, ultra-harmful ends. Examples are at the start of this post :)

    For hypothetical examples on how this might work - in reality it might be different in the specifics (these are just illustrative):

    • Meta/FB could start a campaign (maybe astroturfed) for “user safety”, where they encourage people to distrust users from smaller instances or any user with their instance address marker not on @threads.<whatever their url>
    • Meta/FB could add “secure messaging” (lol, it’s facebook), but only between threads users. Then they could push the idea that ActivityPub is bad for privacy (the DMs are, but just use Matrix ;p - if you post stuff publicly, it makes sense that it’s public).
    • Meta/FB could by simple user mass result in most communities being on Threads. People tend to drift towards more populous communities about the same topic, in general, and Threads unbalances the user ratios so much that everyone would just go to those >.< (as opposed to right now, where we have similar sized communities on several large instances, where most people subscribe to most of them)
    • Meta/FB could use social engineering to push for changes to the ActivityPub protocol that are harder for other ActivityPub servers to implement ^.^, or even ones that are hard for non-proprietary clients to implement. For example, embedding DRM in the protocol or something like that.
    • Meta’s algorithms could over time shift towards deprioritising non-“paid”/“verified” Threads users.
    • It’s already been explained how the app as we know it essentially makes it hard for people to leave due to the fact only they have access to their server software and they also ensure that the app is only a specific client for this service.

    Instance Admins, and the “Friendliness” of Meta

    Some instance admins have been in contact with Meta/FB. It does make sense for at least some of them to do “due dilligence”, but I’ve seen in at least one post a comment on the friendliness and cooperativeness of the engineers and the fact they mostly discussed architectural concerns and stuff like moderation and technical stuff.

    I want to remind instance admins that no matter how nice the engineers are - and how much they share your interests - they are still working for what is essentially a mass information warfare machine. This doesn’t make them malicious at all, but it does mean that what they are doing is not a solid perspective on the actual goals and attitude of Meta/Facebook, The Corporate Assimilator Organism.

    Regardless of what they have discussed, they are obligated as employees to act on Meta’s orders, not the things they actually want to work on or the things both them and you find important ^.^ - or even act towards the goals they want to act towards when Meta inevitably goes for the throat.

    I encourage instance admins to keep this in mind, and further keep in mind that Meta is pretty much royalty when it comes to social stuff and how to appeal to people. If they were trying to appeal to a more corporate social media service, they’d probably have gone with sending in the C-suite, but they know this community is technically inclined and less likely to buy into corpo speak and corpo bullcrap, so they probably hooked you up with all the chill engineers instead :).

    Reiterating my view: Resist Corpo-Assimilation!

    Note on This Post

    I’ve realised this post would probably be most useful if the primary targets of Threads could see it (Mastodon). But I don’t have Mastodon cus I really am not into microblogging myself, so RIP ;p

  • Wr4ith@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    87
    ·
    1 year ago

    Reddit and twitters recent moves were the driving force behind me switching to mastadon and lemmy, but I ditched meta/Facebook services long ago. Adding those back into this fold really makes the choice for me kind of easy. Inviting meta to the party is just a non starter.

  • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Almost once a week for the last 5 years there is a neoliberal that screams about defederating from leftist instances that have absolutely zero power and influence in the world just for disagreeing with them politically. Doesn’t matter whether you’re on lemmy or mastodon or other services, this happens like clockwork.

    Those exact same people are currently defending against defederating from an evil megacorporation with literal cia employees on staff that does real quantifiable evil shit in the world, and they claim to be moral.

  • cley_faye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m still baffled that some people can argue “why are you so worried?” about this. We have twenty years of history of shit hitting the fan, how much more do you need to not trust Facebook/Meta?

  • NutWrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Agreed. It’s not cowardly or “anti-competitive” to choose to avoid stepping in crap. Because that’s what Facebook and Twitter are. Single ownership of an entire social media is a terrible idea, because that platform will always be promoting and protecting the interests of its owners, not its users.

  • ToastyMedic@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    1 year ago

    For what it’s worth, I’d like to put my voice. Out here in support of defederating them.

    Our goals and their goals are like parallel Lines, They’ll never cross.