this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
3607 points (96.1% liked)

Fediverse

28385 readers
553 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
 

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!)

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] iDunnoBro@sopuli.xyz 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's guaranteed that they'll use their instance to datamine and further build profiles on people in other federated instances as well.

I don't trust them at all with their handling of data besides their ability to track people who aren't even on their platforms. Also it's almost impossible to reach out to them unless you buy their shitty VR headset, as you will find out if someone ever fraudulently takes your account to buy ads with your money and gets your FB account banned.

Fuck the Zuck.

[–] EmperorHenry@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

Facebook sucks, there's nothing but dumb boomers on there now. And the amount of data they harvest from their users is insane. If they think you're a bot, they'll demand to see your government issued ID or your SSN to "verify" you and totally not to get deeper insight into who you are and how to sell shit to you.

[–] MargotRobbie@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

While I don't support preemptive defederation and was willing to give them a chance, it should be clear by now that Facebook is uninterested in being good actors, and allowing a nearly unmoderated large instance with hate groups and also collects this much info from their users is dangerous regardless of who runs it.

I support defed due to malicious behavior, although I still think Threads is going to fail regardless of what any of us does.

[–] dystop@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Everyone here talking about XMPP and EEE.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] puppy@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I only joined Lemmy because of its open source, non-manipulative, not-for-profit nature. If Meta joins it will be a good reason for me to quit. Hell, even Reddit would be better than a Fediverse with Meta IMO.

[–] Coelacanth@feddit.nu 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Hopefully .world decides to defederate Threads and Meta, but if they refuse you can migrate to another instance that does defederate them. The solution here should be to refuse Meta, not give up on Lemmy and the Fediverse.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] warmaster@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

Meta can Zuck it.

[–] monsterovich@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

How Google killed XMPP

Google didn't kill XMPP, it died on its own. XMPP still lacks encryption by default and proper file transfers (there are 3 implementations of file transfers and all of them suck). The problem is that XMPP never had a normal protocol, and as a result, clients were forced to implement the features themselves through extensions which were not supported by all clients and servers. So it's hard to blame Google for starting to do their own implementation of features. Matrix did everything better, but for some reason people don't use it. They don't, because there's Telegram, Discord and so on.

Don't defend XMPP. It's obsolete. If you want a federation, use Matrix.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] DarthRedLeader@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I feel like defederating is a good short term solution, but the events described with XMPP could have happened in any number of ways.

The real focus should be on how to make ActivityPub robust enough to prevent the events from the article from happening again.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zippythezigzag@lemmynsfw.com 25 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Nope. Im out. Im not waiting for admins to do the right thing. I did that with reddit and we all see where that went.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] trouser_mouse@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think I fall on the side of preemptive defederation, not just because of data harvesting etc but also because the incoming communities will be huge and dwarf anything already here - look at what has happened here already as communities try to merge and establish. Everything dominant will become meta along with whatever mods and rules etc they already have in place. Scary.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TurretCorruption@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

Agreed. More instances should defederate from anything related to Meta. Im here because a corporate entity utterly destroyed something I liked. I don't want that again.

[–] Kertain@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I am sure this might have been mentioned by someone else but my concern - someone that is financially motivated and saavy could work on becoming one of the larger instances in hopes Meta will buy them out. Similar to a startup, make a good product (community) and hope to get bought out for big bucks.

This means we need to trust instance owners and they in turn, as they get larger, need to be over transparent of their motivations, goals, and actions

Quesion: I don't know if the tech limits this, but if an instance owner flips to the dark side- could past posts and content be opened up for Meta mandated data scraping? Or would any code change like that not be retroactive? Aka if we select an instance that turns bad could we be feeding the machine in the future without knowing it today?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] DundasStation@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There must never be a single dominant instance. If one instance becomes too large, they end up having too much influential power. And with all that power, big corporations or power tripping admins will use that power to coerce other instances to do certain things. "Don't want to follow our unilaterally-imposed rule? We're gonna cut off your entire instance and your users will lose access to our communities."

If Meta doesn't get defederated, they will become the dominant instance. They already have the most amount of users since I'm assuming you can use your Facebook/Instagram account, they'll have the most amount of user activity, and of course the most amount of power.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dutchkimble@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm imagining Zuckerbot finding your post and his eye screen going red and it has your name and photo with a big flashing red PRIMARY TARGET

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Semenaisse@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m still getting used to this platform, so this might be a stupid question. Are we able to see their content/can they see ours?

[–] sapient_cogbag@infosec.pub 29 points 1 year ago (10 children)

If we defederate, they can technically pull our content because it's public, but it's difficult, and their users won't be able to interact with it.

We would not be able to see theirs unless you manually went to their site.

Right now, they still haven't turned federation on, so we can't do that. If we do federate, we will be able to (easily) see and interact with their content, and they will be able to (easily) see and interact with our content. If we defederate, we can technically see each other's content by visiting their site (or them visiting ours), but we wouldn't be able to usefully interact with them and vice-versa without making an account on their site (or vice-versa) ^.^

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] WheelcharArtist@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

defed meta!

[–] protogen32@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Stupid idea: Could a server like lemmy.world pretend to have a very popular post by faking interaction with it to get it to show up to everyone using threads? It seems like it would be doable to run a server that allows for vote and comment manipulation, allowing for anyone to get anything to show up on threads. This could be bad for meta, as any actual user posts would be overshadowed by fake posts/spam from federated instances. I have no idea about how lemmy works, but anyone could make a server that would be running modificated code, right?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] MrPoopyButthole@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (8 children)

One thing that people are not talking about is that it would be fairly trivial to create communities in the fediverse on open servers and then just sync a bunch of your corporate drivel from what ever company like meta into those communities. Its already happening. Reddit was the first one to do this. There are communities where every single link goes to Reddit here on Lemmy

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›