Here's my prediction, but I'd like others to contribute their predictions as well. I think it's important that we make ourselves aware of signs before they start showing, and that we have a record to point to if things play out exactly as we predict.
- Threads launches, federates with the 'verse, everything works well and actually seems hunky-dory. Even companies/restaurants/officials that use a Facebook page might be accessible via federation!
- Threads starts allowing their users to embed and interact with content from Facebook, Instagram, & possibly WhatsApp using Threads. Federated communities will be able to embed some of that content as well. Also, InstaWhatsBook users will be able to link to Threads posts as well.
- Sooner or later, embedded content from the Meta's 'verse will encourage and eventually require you to be signed into Meta. This will be for the "security" and "privacy" of Meta users. But don't worry, you'll simply be able to link your federated instance's account to a Meta account real easy, and even keep your credentials & karma status synced as well!
- Eventually posts from Threads users will be restricted even further and you'll have to visit their site in order to "securely" view that content. Don't worry though, you synced your account before so it's not really an issue to just hop over.
- People get tired of having to hop over to Threads for most posts, and since their credentials are synced to both, it doesn't really hurt to just stay on Threads and view federated posts from there.
- Meta changes the nature of their karma system so not everything syncs anymore. Of course you get the most benefit if you're posting on Threads.
- Meta finally decides that federating "just isn't in their best interest" and shuts down federation, leaving a husk of the Fediverse behind.
I'm in the camp of welcoming meta to the fediverse, BUT - not bending over backwards.
If they start making changes that affect federation for them, then that is their problem. Treat meta as a platform, no different to mastodon.
Remember that the fediverse consists of more than just Mastodon.
If meta makes a change and suddenly pixelfed can't federate properly with meta anymore, it'll be a shame, but it does not mean that pixelfed should make changes and add workarounds so that it is able to speak to meta again.
Meta might think they have the power to do this, but they only have that power if we behave like they do.
If instead we take an attitude of, it's fine for you to be here, while you are being a good citizen, but if you start making demands - you are on your own.
No, that's not their problem, that's ours too. I don't think that you know the whole story. They are not gonna make changes just on their side, they are making some admins of the fediverse sign an NDA too:
https://433.world/@Yuvalne/110566872225488614
Explain the NDA please.
Mastodon doesn't make people sign NDA afaik. Neither does lemmy or kbin.
Not if pixelfed has signed an NDA with Meta.
That's probably the point of the NDA Meta is making people sign.
I was on board with your position before, until I read this NDA stuff. If the admins are making changes then the fediverse is dead.
NDAs are pretty standard practice in corporate environments, and they don't automatically mean there's something nefarious going on.
I don't see why we should accept the NDA practice in the fediverse. We've been naive in the past, now I would avise way more caution.
To me signing an NDA or refusing to sign the fedipact would be a red alert for the platform.
Any corporation is going to make non employees sign an NDA before showing them internal information. This is not a red flag in and of itself.
I guess we will never know since everything is under NDA, right? So this is the end of the sharing of information. I see no good reason to trust an admin who signed an NDA with Meta in this context. If average Joe can run an instance in a container then I'm sure that Meta can do it too.
Reminder about Zuck:
I keep getting the feeling you've never actually been under an NDA.
What are you imagining the worst-case scenario is for what could be discussed? You clearly have globbed on to this idea and NDAs mean something nefarious is going on, and since you apparently can't be reasoned out of that particular conspiracy theory, help me understand what your concern is.
I have.
I don't want to have to imagine, that's the point of the fediverse, everything is in the open, leveled playing field for everyone. If Meta cannot work with this principle then fine, but don't push it on us.
I'm such a horrible person.
Anyway we know better where everyone stands. I'm for signing the fedipact, you're not.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. What is a fedipact? What does me signing it (or not signing it) mean? Does it say something about NDAs? I've under one right now for work.
What "level playing field" are you referencing? With respect to what?
https://fedipact.online/
Oh. Yeah that's nonsense.
What do you think the NDA says that would be a huge issue? As mentioned before, NDAs are extremely common in business environments and don't mean much other than you can't leak proprietary information. An NDA can't compel someone to do anything and absolutely can't silence people. If any of the admins that were a part of the meeting signed the NDA and had an issue with what was discussed, they can definitely bring up that it was problematic as long as they don't give too specific of details. I personally don't trust Meta at all, but the NDA is not one of the reasons.
It's also important to note that right now, ActivityPub is fairly small and most of the users use it because of issues with the alternatives. If Meta tried to do anything, it's likely the same people and more would stay here instead of moving to Threads. Also this may be naive, but I strongly believe that if more major players adopt ActivityPub, it would incentivize everyone to continue supporting it. This will not happen if we take such a hostile approach to corporations joining the fediverse.