this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
504 points (94.7% liked)

Fediverse

28277 readers
904 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

With Meta starting to actually implement ActivityPub, I think it would be a good idea to remind everyone of what they are most likely going to do.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MudMan@kbin.social 171 points 11 months ago (25 children)

Man, I'm not gonna relitigate this but no, Google Talk didn't kill XMPP. XMPP is not, in fact, dead. WhatsApp killed Google Talk and pretty much every other competitor and XMPP would have been in that boat with or without Google Talk.

This is gonna keep coming up, it's gonna keep being wrong and I'm really not gonna bother picking this fight each and every single time.

[–] Kushan@lemmy.world 42 points 11 months ago

This needs to be higher for visibility. The story of Google killing XMPP is a good one but it's utterly bullshit. XMPP was a mess, Google didn't kill it, it killed itself by having fucked ecosystem that didn't do anything better than numerous proprietary standards at the time.

It's not like XMPP was EVER dominant, nor was Google talk - even man messenger was more popular at the time and that's also dead.

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago

Yeah I kept thinking these people must be incredibly young if they think this is what happened. As if Google Talk was anyone's problem (in the big picture), nevermind XMPP's.

[–] lily33@lemm.ee 15 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Well, people like to think that the fediverse is a genuine threat to Meta. And they like to feel they're doing important work defending it from Meta. So this will indeed pop up again, and again, and again.

[–] MudMan@kbin.social 12 points 11 months ago

They do? I mean, a few times I did have to point out that Meta has multiple products breaking 2 billion active users, so the "fediverse" is a drop in the ocean, but not many people seem to stick with that argument after a quick bout of googling.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)
[–] paf0@lemmy.world 116 points 11 months ago (4 children)

fwiw, XMPP/Slack/Discord/etc basically solve the same problem that IRC already solved. Software Engineers just reinvent the wheel again and again as everyone loves a green field.

That said, Meta cannot be trusted. They're going to do a year or two of embrace and extend, pretending to be good citizens. Then they will invent some crisis that causes them to want to de-federate, likely that content on other servers is not moderated to their standards or that convoluted features of their extended protocol are not being met. This take seems pretty spot on to me.

[–] Sabata11792@kbin.social 46 points 11 months ago (6 children)

Then they will invent some crisis that causes them to want to de-federate

Easy to predict.

Zucc-bot saw titties on Lemmy, something something think about the children outrage. "Better follow our advertisers happy friendship rules or we defederate and all your users will miss there normie friends. Not our rules, bro."

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Wouldn't that just isolate their instance much like heaxbear? Or are you saying that the threads instance will be larger than Lemmy.world, or kbin?

[–] Sabata11792@kbin.social 19 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Meta out scales the entire project. Google says 141 million users. Its the scale of pissing into the ocean.

Not too familiar with the back end stuff, but would federation data from Meta just DDOS a server not worth millions?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Cqrd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

Software Engineers just reinvent the wheel again and again as everyone loves a green field.

While somewhat true, this is also a dumb take. Not everyone working at Slack/Discord/etc can work on IRC. They're making competing businesses, not just wanting to re-solve the same problem but wanting to do it with a new code base.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Banana_man@reddthat.com 55 points 11 months ago

Nothing good will come of federating with meta, the fediverse should simply stay out of their reach and realize whatever potential it may have.

I think there might be another way to hurt it though that this article doesn't seem to mention. Funnily enough, it's also a theme of an asterix and obelix comic book, which the introduction referenced. This way would be monetization. Threads might try to "help" the fediverse by feeding the bigger instances money, therefore the hosts of the instances would be more open to negotiations with meta and accepting of their policies.

I will compare this to YouTube which started paying all it's big creators until they became dependent on the platform for a living and then started slowly implementing more and more rules that limit their freedom of expression. Remember how much PewDiePie used to swear in his getting over it videos? In another "pew news" or whatever it was called video I happened to watch he directly mentioned that he censors himself because he isn't going to put his job on the line just to say "fuck". Profit invites creators to comply with YouTube's regulations even if they aren't enforced violently always.

The same pattern was used in the asterix comic I mention above. Ceasar decides to open a building complex almost next to the problematic for him village and so the residents flood the markets and are shocked at the low prices compared to Rome. As a result, the villagers start increasing prices and advertising their goods and services, neglecting their previous morals and ethos. In the end, however, the Romans lose again after (panoramix, I think?) makes them realize how much separation this has caused them, living only for their business. As a result they kick the Romans out of their village, once again united, and Caesar's plans fail.

I think both these stories could serve as a potential warning to anyone who might consider selling themselves out if meta adopts such a policy.

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 44 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The year is 2023. The whole Internet is under the control of the GAFAM empire. All of it? Well, not entirely. Because a few small villages are resisting the oppression.

European detected.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 7 points 11 months ago

Hey, that's us!!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rokin@lemm.ee 40 points 11 months ago (5 children)

So Google used Microsoft's "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" strategy and looks like Facebook is aiming to use ut as well

[–] 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works 14 points 11 months ago

Every corp is aiming at that. It's a strategy that worked very well for MS (and the CIA).

[–] EnderMB@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago

To be fair, Microsoft didn't invent this, they only showed that it could be implemented in the tech industry. To some extent, basically every big tech company does this now.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] moitoi@feddit.de 38 points 11 months ago (1 children)

For mastodon if it can help:

  • Open your favorite text editor and write threads.net

  • Save it as csv

  • On your profile on Mastodon, click "edit profile" and scroll to "import/export".

  • Choose "import", it will open a menu.

  • In this menu be sure to click on "Following list" and choose "Domain blocking list".

  • Browse and select your CSV

  • Click upload

[–] Aurelius@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

This is a fascinating read and very relevant given that Meta is moving closer to connecting Threads (per OP). The article gives a good example with How Google killed XMPP

[–] misk@sopuli.xyz 13 points 11 months ago (5 children)

The article lacks some details that are inconvenient to the point it makes. What was the state of XMPP before being adopted by tech giants and after they dropped it / walled it off? What could be done to prevent it?

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

I just remember that Google used to be able to talk to Facebook and it was awesome.

Before that I used Trillian which had to log in to all the networks. There was one beautiful moment in time where you could just use an XMPP client and you were able to reach most of the people you know

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] independantiste@sh.itjust.works 18 points 11 months ago (5 children)

This time I don't think it is an extenguish scenario. I think this is more of a preventative move to one-up the EU on interoperability. They want to be able to say "look how good we are, we already were interoperable for x time!". But of course this could also not be the case and they might just want to kill the network, but I even find that unlikely. Xmpp isn't dead in fact I use it every day as my phone number for texts and calls and I quite like it. Super robust, I basically never saw any federation weirdness like you could see on mastodon or Lemmy. So in my eyes xmpp didn't get killed, they got beat by someone who had ressources and made a better product. And it's not that I don't think meta can make a great product that users like, but I kind of think that, especially when the competition exists (xwixxer) compared to basically none for Facebook and Instagram

[–] MudMan@kbin.social 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Yup. This is pretty much right on the money.

BlueSky and Threads are looking at interoperable protocols because they a) have engineers at home that think it's cool, and b) see the writing on the wall about upcoming regulation and want to preempt it. This is probably good for other networks already based on interoperability, but there are definitely a ton of open questions.

The article is 100% revisionist history written backwards to justify a knee-jerk conclusion and XMPP is indeed not dead. Or not any deader than anybody else that got washed away by WhatsApp winning the messaging wars over the 2010s.

EDIT: Re-reading my own post, it's too harsh. The article isn't "100%" revisionist history, so much as a biased insider account. The revisionist history is largely coming from both the misattribution of what happened to a deliberate move from Google and the fact that it's being misread and misquoted when people react to it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I think this is more of a preventative move to one-up the EU on interoperability

And it's not even difficult to figure out.

As if Meta has any interest in actually being federated. This is like Google paying Mozilla to keep Firefox alive. As long as it's not "serious competition", it's useful. You can point to it as a "Look! Free market! No monopoly here! We're not stifling competition, we are actively funding it!!!". And Meta gets to promote how they're actively engaged in interoperability, supporting federation and all that.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] mojo@lemm.ee 17 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Meta does not give a shit to absorb the fedi. We are like a thousandth of their size, just a blip on their radar. I have no idea where people get this idea of self importance that Meta cares about their 10 user server.

[–] Banana_man@reddthat.com 20 points 11 months ago (2 children)

If they didn't why would they develop tools to federate? It's obvious that the threads project was sped up significantly following musk's obliteration of Twitter, so they wouldn't go out of their way to implement such a feature if they didn't have a very specific reason for it.

A company's goal is maximization of profit, so don't assume they intend anything else. The activitypub userbase is too small to be a significant addition to their userbase but in this way they can destroy it before it escapes their control. They don't take risks. Mastodon could seriously compete with threads and it's gaining popularity. If one more big boom happens it might be too late to stop the fediverse from competing with meta in the most cost efficient way possible. Do not be lured in by the false sense of security, meta wants us to help maximize their profit. We aren't doing that right now so Meta wants to stop us (or limit us, whatever they deem more profitable)

[–] APassenger@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

They don't take risks.

Quibble: Meta took a huge write off because their metaverse didn't get the reception they hoped.

I think they take risks, just calculated ones. And sometimes... A founders ambition.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I bet XMPP users were saying the same thing about google talk, maybe try reading the article?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] G020B@lemmy.zip 14 points 11 months ago (2 children)

If something killed XMPP for me - it was Matrix. On open source replacement that is not only more popular, but has more active development and it's easier to use. No big company required. And since XMPP is still alive for its niche user base and EU is probably the reason for Threads federation - I don't think this is the right hill to die on.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] uphillbothways@kbin.social 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Is there anyway to implement (without spinning up your own private instance) the ability for individual users to opt out of federation of their content to certain instances, or would that introduce too much overhead and complication?

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 8 points 11 months ago

This is a commonly requested feature, and is likely to appear in a future version of Lemmy. In the interim, several of the mobile apps have this feature.

[–] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 11 points 11 months ago

Given new EU legislation, it is likely that in the future, they may be forced to correctly implement ActivityPub, and to federate with instances not violating their content policies.

[–] fl42v@lemmy.ml 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Well, if met~~h~~a decides to interop, activity pub can launch some propaganda to make users "just switch", I guess. I mean it's somewhat different from the situation with xmpp and google as most sane ppl already know fb's crap isn't good for your data... So maybe smth like "remember that cool shiny thingy people were leaving xitter for? Guess what, now you can talk there with your grandma without subjecting yourself to fb's shady practices" could work given interop works good enough.

P.S. that specification under a EULA actually sounds like a good idea if you put it a bit differently: whatever implements this specification should be published under one of $insert_a_set_of_licenses. Then whatever proprietary garbage creator that decides to join will be forced to do this via bridges, and others can tell them to fix their crap 😁

[–] JGrffn@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)

most sane ppl already know fb's crap isn't good for your data

Bold of you to assume they care enough to do something about it. It took half a second for more than half of my friends to jump onto threads when it launched. None of them ever considered the fediverse before that. People just flock to whatever the big companies do.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MargotRobbie@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

We already talked about XMPP a few months ago, if anyone is interested in reading about some experiences with XMPP for more context.

https://lemmy.world/post/1121594

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] kpw@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago

XMPP still works great btw. It was hard to convince everyone to get an address, but now 95% of my messages are over XMPP. To me compatibility with internet standards is a hard requirement.

load more comments
view more: next ›