this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2023
477 points (95.4% liked)

Fediverse

17429 readers
168 users here now

A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.

Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".

Getting started on Fediverse;

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
477
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

Made by Nume MacAroon at Veganism.social https://veganism.social/@nm

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 111 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Some instances know their embrace, extend, extinguish history and some don’t.

[–] [email protected] 64 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] fruitycoder 9 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I still stand by that defederation as the only line of defense is a losing strategy. Keeping users siloed in Facebook's garden shouldn't be seen as a win for us.

[–] [email protected] 69 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Keeping users siloed in Facebook’s garden shouldn’t be seen as a win for us.

Sometimes the only winning move is not to play. If people hadn't federated with google's XMPP back in the day, google wouldn't have had the same level of control it had to kill XMPP as a competitor.

We need to learn from the lessons of the past, and the past has resulted in the deaths of services when federating with corporations.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"We should debate them... And defeat them on the Marketplace of Ideas." Yeah, right.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

I never said defeating them or out competing them should be the goal. The goal should be the survival of services. And corporations will kill these services.

[–] fruitycoder 5 points 8 months ago

I don't disagree with needing to not repeat past mistakes.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What is your definition of win? Market share? Are you thinking in capitalist terms?

Nobody is forcing those people to use Facebook, and they are welcome to come here whenever they like.

[–] fruitycoder 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The most free people. Best for society. Etc.

|They're welcome to come here whenever they like .

Only if they know it exists and can still connect with the people and communities they care about. This is what the federated approach was supposed to fix, the silos, the community capture.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

We know what Meta is, and we know our history, so we know Meta’s goal is to destroy the fediverse. Federating with Meta is not likely to yield your desired outcomes.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

This conversation will be off the record.

Ahaha, fuck no. If someone did go, please spill that tea.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Can you explain what that means in this context? How does defederating Threads prevent Meta from extinguishing anything?

[–] [email protected] 28 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)
  • Embrace: Join the fediverse with your existing user base that dwarfs the fediverse’s existing user base, and with infinitely more money.
  • Extend: Use your size, in terms of users and capital, to steer the direction of the ActivityPub fediverse standard to your advantage and your competitors’ disadvantage. You see everyone else as a competitor because you are a corporation seeking to monopolize the user base for profit.
  • Extinguish: See what Google did to XMPP for a concrete example.
[–] [email protected] 17 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Or what Google does right now with Chrome and web standards.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 8 months ago

For those unaware of Google’s latest web browser malarkey: Web Environment Integrity

EFF/Cory Doctorow/Jacob Hoffman-Andrews: Your Computer Should Say What You Tell It To Say

Google is adding code to Chrome that will send tamper-proof information about your operating system and other software, and share it with websites. Google says this will reduce ad fraud. In practice, it reduces your control over your own computer, and is likely to mean that some websites will block access for everyone who's not using an "approved" operating system and browser. It also raises the barrier to entry for new browsers, something Google employees acknowledged in an unofficial explainer for the new feature, Web Environment Integrity (WEI).

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

The XMPP article was good, thanks!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

But how would defederating prevent any of that?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It would make Threads unable to see content from instances defederating it and vice versa, preventing the Embrace step.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

That's a common misconception actually, any and all data available via federation is already public and easily scrapable even without running an instance of one's own. Defederating only hides (in this case) Threads content from users on the instance doing the defederating, but the data is still public. Not to mention copies of it would still be fully available on any extant federated instances.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

But they would still be unable to embrace (and, by extension, extend and extinguish) because users from Threads would be unable to interact with users from other instances. Basically, they'd be unable to get rid of a potential competitor using the EEE method.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

But how could interoperability lead to extinguishing? That's the part I don't understand. By what means could Threads "extinguish" the network of instances that stay federated?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

The same way we prevented any of that up ’till now: by doing our own thing on our own terms.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It prevents that specific strategy that would culminate in extinguishing. The idea being to siphon users away from other platforms, then add features that other platforms won't or can't implement, and use that to create an image of their own platform being better, having more features. If they succeed at having a lot of users oblivious to what's happening, they will use those features, and when they don't work for people on other platforms, they will blame the other platforms instead of their own, further cultivating the image that other platforms are broken/unreliable. In the end, they leave other platforms unable to compete, forcing users to either have a "broken"/incomplete experience, or migrate to their platforms. (Or leave the fediverse entirely). Or they can simply stop federating at that point, after users have left for their platform, cutting off the rest of the fediverse from content hosted on their platform.

The way defederating prevents a strategy like that is by cutting them off before they can get a foothold - they can't make users feel left out if they don't get to influence their experience in the first place.

[–] pelespirit 2 points 8 months ago

Also, if the best people are on the instances threads can't see, their userers will feel left out.