A response to Daring Fireball’s recent thinkpieces about Fediverse admins wanting to block Meta’s new ActivityPub platform.

  • maynarkh@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think the story he’s telling is mostly coherent.

    The whole point is that Facebook’s business model is fundamentally incompatible with the current vision for the Fediverse, it’s like Steam announcing they will be seeding torrents from now on. They have an ulterior motive, and a track record including enabling genocide for example, so they are not to be trusted, they are doing it so that they can take value away from the Fediverse, not to add to it.

    • Qazwsxedcrfv000@lemmy.unknownsys.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I see it the other way. These giants joining and thus enabling the mess joining alone is value added to the fediverse already. We have to admit most people do not give a shit to the fediverse, selfhosting, open source, bla bla bla. For them they just want it to work despite the latent costs. That’s why selfhosted blogs gave way to blogspot.com and eventually Facebook and friends.

      • maynarkh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Okay, but are those people really joining the Fediverse, or do they just continue to be Facebook/Instagram/Whatever users while having access to the value the Fediverse creates?

        The counterargument seems to be that if the Fediverse’s learning curve is too high, then it might wither and die. It’s growing now, but good question about the future.

        So here’s an idea, why doesn’t someone get in front of Meta on this one, and implement the SSO service they use (it has a public API for all the “log in w/ Facebook” stuff) into a few Lemmy or Kbin instances? The purported value of it being easier to join for Meta users is still there then, right?

        • Qazwsxedcrfv000@lemmy.unknownsys.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          While Meta’s platform is having access to the value created in the fediverse, aren’t we also getting access to the value created on their platforms too (of course unless you deny there is any value there)? Recipiocity is the true differentiator here in my opinion.

          For software, I think we need a more complete package than that to truly unlease the fediverse. Maybe an easy-to-use application (a la an email client or a bittorrent client) that allows prospective users to spin up an instance and feel the magic themselves. Otherwise people are just crowding into a few major instances and eventually the scaling problem will show up again. If we are going down that route, we should also consider incentive model(s) that makes thing sustainable. Lemmy is an open source software but that also means the developers are unpaid. But surely I applaud any idea that attempts to reduce the barrier of entry to the fediverse.

          • maynarkh@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            aren’t we also getting access to the value created on their platforms too

            I guess we are, just as we had access to Reddit’s value. That’s the fear I guess, this is just part of the business cycle.

            First, they are going to provide value, be real nice until they are latched on, embrace the platform. Then they are going to start providing value to the instance owners by developing mod tools, better ways to more easily connect instances, maybe even some AI powered spam filter to block malicious instances, extending the.

            Finally we’ll realize they own the thing as they extinguish competitors by removing compatibility to “unverified” stuff in the name of security and we realized Meta has succeeded in extinguishing the free Fediverse.

            It might not be like that, but it has been so many times.

            • Very_Bad_Janet@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Enshittifocation commences.

              I don’t mind chocolate in my peanut butter. But I don’t want Meta in my Fediverse.

            • Qazwsxedcrfv000@lemmy.unknownsys.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I wholeheartedly share the worry of rug pulling but we have to dance with the devils aka evil corps one way or another as we have no mean to eradicate them. As long as the goals aligned to a large enough extent, the alliance should still be accepted despite the unholiness.

              Meta’s platform(s) supporting ActivityPub can potentially give us a leverage. If they do honour how the system works and be reciprocal, it means they no longer monopolize the content (from which most values to us the users are derived) on its platforms. So if another Reddit madness happens again, valuable contents created would have been (or could be made) distributed across the fediverse already. That would make migration much easier. Just a change of URL and business as usual for most people. Of course you may say I am being overly optimistic here but there is no point in being pessimistic either. The whole Thread thing is still a rumour after all. Maybe it will never see the light of sun.

              • Kichae@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                But that’s the thing. For a lot of people here, the goals are fundamentally misaligned. Much of this space was made by, and is populated by, people who explicitly and specifically walked away from corporate social media.

                We’re here exactly because we don’t want them.

                Obviously, that’s not everybody, but so many of us have actually learned the lessons of the last 15 months.

                • Qazwsxedcrfv000@lemmy.unknownsys.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  As the author Sean said in a response to my comment, defederating is always an option in the fediverse. It is a built-in feature. I am not against it. If some communities have enough spite to anything corporate social network, they can defederate as they please. Just bear in mind the spite is for everything corporate social network, the people and the content included. And there is no need to indulge in a grandiose manifesto. Just say “I hate Meta and anything associated with it” is more than enough.

                  • Nicol Wistreich@social.coop
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    @qazwsxedcrfv000 @Kichae could it even be narrower than ‘corporate social media’? Ie maybe you run a tiny business and don’t have a problem with companies just because they’re companies. But you know monopolies are usually bad, so monopolies over the world’s public digital squares & discourse must be really bad.

                    And so you ended up here, on Activity Pub, not completely convinced that an 8-million-monthly-active-user fediverse will survive federating with a 3-billion-daily-active-user monopoly.

    • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the issue here is that I don’t think you can assume that “the fediverse” is an entity with a “current vision” in fact it is specifically architected to have a plurality of visions