this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2023
163 points (100.0% liked)

Fediverse

287 readers
1 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the federated social networking ecosystem, which includes decentralized and open-source social media platforms. Whether you are a user, developer, or simply interested in the concept of decentralized social media, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as the benefits and challenges of decentralized social media, new and existing federated platforms, and more. From the latest developments and trends to ethical considerations and the future of federated social media, this category covers a wide range of topics related to the Fediverse.

founded 2 years ago
 

A growing number of instances (mainly of Mastodon so far) are signing an 'Anti-Meta Fedi Pact', pledging to block any instance owned by Meta in the fediverse.

I don't know how big this will get or how effective it will be, but if you run a fediverse instance, you should take a look at this https://fedipact.online/

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 years ago

Now this is defederation I can get behind.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The last thing I personally want is reintroducing Silicon Valley cancer back into the Fediverse. Let's keep them away. No ads, no algos, no bullshit.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

I want tech companies to do technical foundations job and not to do advertisement job

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Broadly, I have no issue with this.

In the first place, it's just a part of the nature of the fediverse that admins are free to manage their instances as they prefer and users are free to choose instances as they prefer, so it's no more significant in that sense than a restaurant not including some particular thing on its menu. It's their choice, and I'm entirely free to order something else or go to a different restaurant.

Specifically, to the degree that it matters (which is likely not at all), this is the decision I'd make too, just because even in a culture increasingly defined by corporate shitweasels, Meta stands out for being especially shitweaselish.

All that said, I keep wondering if it's going to be an issue anyway. The fediverse is a sort of technically and conceptually complex place, and uncharitably, Meta's customer base leans toward the lazy and stupid end of the spectrum.

I can definitely see some likelihood that a lot (most?) of the people who might end up following a link to a Meta-owned instance are just going to get confused and frustrated, then scurry back to Facebook.

We'll see...

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago

I just want to commend you for the term shitweaselish. It was needed and I thank you for providing it. :-)

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 years ago (15 children)

I won't claim to defend Meta, but wouldn't at least give them the benefit of the doubt until there's details of the project a saner approach? We literally know nothing about it except it's in the works.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (10 children)

Give Meta an inch they’ll take a mile. No quarter. No wait and see. No half measures. We don’t literally know nothing; we know Meta is involved. That’s enough for me to say no.

They’ll follow the Microsoft route, pretending to be for open standards, then extending the standard for only their apps and sites, and with sheer numbers and money they’ll grab a bunch of users who will come to expect the features and implementations they provide and then bam. No more fediverse.

Not. One. Inch.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Give meta the benefit of the doubt? Are you joking? We literally know exactly how awful they are in every area they touch.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 years ago

Exactly, I'm sorry Mr Jabroni, but I gotta agree here. They have burned every ounce of goodwill long ago. Don't give them an inch.

[–] socialjusticewizard 5 points 2 years ago

I know they're the worst of capitalism and break any law or agreement they can possibly get away with and many they cannot, but shouldn't we at least give them a chance

Fucking rubes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No. Meta is a known bad actor. They have a history of not being good for protocols and communities. They are already guilty. Just not here yet. Preemptive banning is appropriate. There is no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.

After they roll out their project, then it can be assessed to see how much harm, if any, it will bring. At that point let them in or not, as evidence dictates. It is entirely possible that they will be a good fedi citizen, if the reason for doing this isn't profit. And that is actually possible in this case. Because having some services that use Activity Pub is a way to get get certain regulators off their backs. I wouldn't hold my breath, but it is possible.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I want big money out of my community regardless of what their intentions are, which are probably not good anyway

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago

I have the feeling they're planning to embrace, expand and extinguish. I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt after all they've done for years.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago

Unfortunately Meta has proven itself to be untrustworthy. Over their entire lifespan they've shown through their actions, and their statements by the CEO time and time again, that their main objective is to make the most money possible by exploiting their user base by any means available.

They've long ago lost the credibility to be given the benefit of the doubt. They're terrible, they know it, and they like it that way.

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

No. We know how Facebook is and what their intentions are.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago (4 children)

@Mr_Jabroni
Considering the well-known privacy violations and surveillance practices of Meta/Facebook, it's not hard to imagine that one of their future actions, possibly sooner rather than later, would involve cross-referencing accounts in the fediverse with their own platforms like Facebook, Whatsapp, Instagram, and others. In Mastodon, users have the option to block instances, ensuring that those instances cannot access their data. However, we don't even have that level of protection here.
@LollerCorleone

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Not very surprising to see that the popular instances with a good chuck of users have not signed this pact.

I already see where this is ending up.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

There are some large and mid-sized instances in the list. The big ones haven't really signed up so far. My bet is that most of them are waiting to see how Meta's platform will actually turn out.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

My bet is that most of them are waiting to see how Meta's platform will actually turn out.

Man, the peasants just refuse to learn, don't we? Maybe the wealth class won't fuck everything up and ruin a good thing in the name of short term profit this time! 😑

At least Lucy had to lie to and reassure Charlie Brown to get him to try to kick the football again. It's like people have already forgotten thr reason most of us are here is to escape a greedy asshole breaking our community in his quest to sell us all out to Wall Street.

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

The biggest problem with openness is that anyone can come through the door.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

And you're allowed to shut the door for anyone.

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

Whenever the oligarch class discovers a new crumb the peasants made for themselves, they immediately want that, too. It's never enough.

We can't even escape the insatiable greed of our capitalist dystopia on a decentralized lifeboat 😔

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago

The hell we can't.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] _haha_oh_wow_ 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I like the sound of this, Meta is a cancer on the Internet.

[–] Cracks_InTheWalls 5 points 2 years ago

And if it shows up here, it could Meta-stasize.

...I'll show myself out.

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

I'll play devil's advocate here -- I hate Meta, but Meta apps supporting activitypub would be a huge benefit for adding users to the platform.

Like other small social platforms, the fediverse has a fundamental choice to make between quantity and quality. The quality of Reddit took a nosedive in the last 5-6 years as the platform grew. I'm not saying it was always great in "the old days", but recently all of the big subs were just page after page of the same memes, stupid arguments ("it's called soccer! It's called football!") that have been had a million times, and the same jokes.

So the question is -- how much does the fediverse want to grow? The thing keeping me from deleting my Reddit account right now is some of the sports communities there, and things like a local urbanism group from my hometown.

Having Meta apps support activitypub could help establish that kind of userbase. At the same time, the influx of users could drastically reduce the quality of the platform. It's a balance that has to be struck by the community.

The cool thing about the fediverse compared to other platforms is that the structure allows this kind of thing to be decided fairly democratically -- each instance can "vote" by deciding whether to federate or not, and if we all agree we don't want them, everyone can defederate. If we're 50/50 they'll federate with half of the community.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Meta apps supporting activitypub would be a huge benefit for adding users to the platform.

Just like how Meta apps supporting XMPP was great for XMPP.

Oh wait.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago

Having meta into the fediverse is the easy way out. Meta is going to grow like a cancer in the fediverse, enticing weak minded instance owners with a large pool of users to sign a contract to allow meta to implement their ads or their i fluence somehow in order to make their profits.

I dont see why youd want anything like that to take part when its going to be the same bullshit

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Waves 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I just want to say, look at Google.

Google came into the browser scene with a far better track record for the common good and better intentions than meta.

Something like 96% of browsers are now downstream from Google's code. Recently, Firefox got a lot of flak from companies for having a "pop-out" that let's you do PIP with any video. The standard (guess who it's written by) makes the feature optional, but there's a "disable PIP" flag part of it that Firefox chose to ignore.

Suddenly, I need a plugin to spoof the user-agent, because sites are blocking Firefox. Even with that, things like Google maps have stopped working completely in Firefox. I'm ride or die on this issue so I'm not switching, but my family members I convinced to switch have abandoned ff.

The fediverse should be able to handle corporate involvement - but we said the same about the web. I'm not eager to test it.

If they get any fraction of the market, they'll dictate extensions to the standard, then split us as groups are split between good suggestions, and those realizing we're losing control. Meta will try to take over and monetize the network - that's what a corporation is. Even if right now every single person there is doing it for the right reason, sooner rather than later it will start looking for where the money is

The fediverse is way too young and vulnerable right now... There's going to be efforts to kill or control it, there's no need to invite them in

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I agree with your point but I am curious about the sites blocking Firefox part. I have been only using Firefox now for many years and apart from one or two poorly built government websites, have never run into a site that didn't work.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Lmao, did I not call this exact event yesterday. I knew all they were gonna get was quarantined. Here's hoping their launch is enough of a failure that they don't try this again. We just got out from under a corporation last week, and you know something like Facebook is going to devour everything it can

load more comments
view more: next ›