• TassieTosser
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I know we all dream of having all our friends and family on the Fediverse so we can avoid proprietary networks completely.

    Uh… who does? The reason why I’m on semi-anonymous social networks like reddit and now lemmy is because I don’t want my real life friends or family to know what shit I post.

    • hasteee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      On a similar note, I don’t want to know what my friends and family post either lmao.

    • Zagorath
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the ease of creating multiple accounts is a pretty good reason not to worry about this.

      Shitpost from your anonymous account. Have another real-name account for interacting with your IRL acquaintances.

      I think that could benefit the Fediverse at large because there are some of these friends and family who would go on to be more heavy contributors to content on the broader Fediverse.

  • Aesecakes
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    Based upon previous behaviour, you can guarantee that Meta will not act in good faith in the long run. IMO they don’t give 2 shits about any of the ideals of the fediverse or the open web before that. This is like the Taliban promising that they would be good guys this time around. See point 6.

  • root
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m of the opinion that we do not federate with Meta. I feel their end game is to hoover up as much data as they can and the easiest way for them to do so is to federate and let the Threads users do the work for them.

    If I want to browse content from Meta, I’ll create a burner account with a federated server and use a standalone browser just for that purpose.

    • Lodion 🇦🇺MA
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      As I’ve said elsewhere, that is the beauty of the fediverse - the plethora of instances with different options for users to choose from.

  • Lodion 🇦🇺MA
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m undecided.

    On the one hand, Facebook/Meta are not interested in the health of the fediverse. This is clearly an “embrace, extend, extinguish” move. On the other… they’re sure to have a large number of users, which in turn means a large amount of content that we’ll want to view/participate in. Each of those users will in turn be an opportunity for us to encourage to migrate to the fediverse.

    • Rusty Raven
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel that the large number of users is a problem, not an asset. What makes a platform good is the engagement level of the users, not the volume. A user who does not want to engage enough to create an account is not likely to be engaged enough to add significant value.

      I moved away from Reddit because I don’t want to be part of one monolithic site, I want to be engaged with a smaller group that has more creative energy. There is no exclusivity clause that prevents people from using both sites and accessing all the content, but having them federated will lead to homogonisation and ultimately destroy what makes this site different. To extend the milk metaphor, we are the cream, mixing us in with the milk will make it richer, but destroy us.

      • Lodion 🇦🇺MA
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree with your comments re: engagement and community. But Meta federating doesn’t impact that. Their users/communities will not suddenly become part of your local feed.

        • Rusty Raven
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          It is not my local feed that concerns me, it is the fact that we will become part of theirs. It will be like when a post is popular enough to make it onto the front page of Reddit - suddenly a post that was crafted for a local community, with users that have a shared culture and background, becomes exposed to a random audience including trolls and bullies who take 2 seconds to judge it and have no barrier to putting on their own comment and starting a pile on.

          • Lodion 🇦🇺MA
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            suddenly a post that was crafted for a local community, with users that have a shared culture and background, becomes exposed to a random audience including trolls and bullies

            That is a good point, that I’ve not seen raised elsewhere. Though to an extent, it is already true when you consider the size of aussie.zone compared to lemmy.world for example. Threads will of course be orders of magnitude worse.

            Besides the human impact of the negative interactions, the technical impact on the server of providing content for umpteen million Threads users is also a non-trivial risk. This alone is making me think defederation is the better option until Meta have a) released details on how they intend to not overload existing instances, and b) as @[email protected] said “Meta can prove they won’t hurt fediverse”.

            Having said that, when Threads announce they’ll be federating I’ll put up some sort of poll to solicit feedback from the wider aussie.zone audience. I don’t want to be making such a major change without soliciting feedback in advance.

            • Bill Stickers
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What does threads federating even mean for Lemmy? They’re a mastodon type platform they can’t see posts, they can’t follow communities can they? I understand mastodon and Lemmy are activity pub in the background and theoretically you can susbscribe each way but how do you actually do that and what does it look like.

              How do I follow my mastodon account from here and vice versa?

              I think this is a moot argument for now as meta aren’t making a reddit/Lemmy type platform.

          • phoenixdigita1
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I might not understand how federation would work but users from Meta will have to actively choose to follow an aussie.zone community in order for your posts to be visible to them on Meta Threads. Even then only that user will see your posts here. So the chance of your post here on aussie zone being visible to everyone on Meta Threads just won’t happen.

            If my understanding of Federation is wrong then I’m happy to be corrected.

            • Rusty Raven
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s not how it works with Federation with other Lemmy instances works, I don’t see how Threads users would have a different system. When I look at the feed with All selected now it gives me a lot of random stuff from other instances I’ve never heard of.

              • phoenixdigita1
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I see what you are saying. I’ve changed the settings to only show my subscribed feeds by default because as you said there is a lot of random stuff.

                What you are seeing with “All” on aussie.zone is “All” of the feeds that users on aussie.zone are subscribed to. If no one on aussie zone has subscribed to [email protected] then it will never show up on anyone’s All while in aussie.zone. If one single user subscribes to it then it will start showing up.

                So by default in “All” you will only see Meta communities if people here subscribe to them. The same will likely work the other way. Users on Meta won’t see aussie.zone communities unless someone there subscribes.

                That said I wouldn’t put it past Meta to have “bot” accounts that subscribe to ALL communities on each instance. That sort of action would put a strain on these instances as all posts would go back to Meta. If they pulled that kind of trick then I’d be all for defederation as it would impact the performance and could indicate Meta are just scraping all content from every instance. They’d be pretty dumb to do that but I wouldn’t put it past them.

          • w2qw
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Do you think it’s something that they can defederate or block when it becomes a problem? Defederating this early in the game seems to be more about thinking that Meta will somehow control the Mastodon leadership enough that we won’t be able to do that later.

    • Gamers_MateOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I can understand the appeal of growing numbers but I don’t think the risks outweigh the rewards. Unlimited growth is unsustainable anyway. We can exist without Meta. Meta is a poison pill that will eventually monopolize the fediverse if it has its way. This will not be the first time they killed off a decentralized platform.

      • Lodion 🇦🇺MA
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m not interested in growing user numbers. But I am interested in having access to the content those users generate.

        I am leaning towards defederating Meta… but for now am taking a more “wait and see” approach.

        • david
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Thank you for being transparent. Your plan seem to align with that of some major mastodon’s instance owners, as they agreed with this guy https://www.timothychambers.net/2023/07/03/instagram-threads-and.html

          will be “Watching Like a Hawk, with our Fingers Over the Block Button.” We will NOT be pre-emptively taking a “Fediblock as a Frist Strike” position.

          His reasonings are much better supported compared to Eugene’s. I my opinion he seemed to downplay EEE without any defence mechanism

          In my personal opinion, I support defederation until Meta can prove they won’t hurt fediverse. My points are

          1. Fediverse, especially Lemmy is growing so well without Threads/reddit. We don’t need their contents. People who do would have stayed with reddit already. Having said that, why would we want to federate in the first place

          2. The whole reason Lemmy is where it is today is due to people fed up with reddit’s. They’ve lost trust on Big Tech.

          3. Imagine Meta set up an Lemmy instance. Are we willing to give them for free all the mineable data they would not have otherwise from scrapping? What if they use all that extra data to better train their AI and sell more targeted ads

          4. On an instance like aussie.zone, our profile is likely linked to a city/location. I wonder how many of us set up accounts here just for this instance. I know I do, where i have another account elsewhere for my hobbies, interest groups so that I cannot be traced easily. With that in mind, people can easily create an account elsewhere to follow threads if they really want. Multi account is already supported in app such as Memmy

          5. We can federate later if we really need to

        • root
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          My opinion would be to defederate and take a “wait and see” approach to federate if they behave themselves. :p

        • dbilitated
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m really glad to hear this. honestly I think there’s a lot to gain and we have the privilege of choosing to defederate if it’s the right move, just cutting us off because we don’t like meta is a bit short-sighted. cutting us off if it’s doing harm is another thing, but it’ll hopefully be obvious.

        • phoenixdigita1
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think the wait and see approach is probably best. Your average user doesn’t have to engage with Meta even if aussie.zone federates.

          The good thing is even if aussie.zone federates with Meta your average user will never see any of the content unless they specifically subscribe to a meta community.

          There is a chance Meta users could subscribe to aussie.zone communities but really the chance of that is pretty slim. It’s likely Meta will have “competing” communities for the same topic so why would they subscribe to this little backwater aussie.zone?

          I’m 100% sure there will be many that just don’t like the idea of being federated with Meta from a personal/ethical standpoint and will likely threaten to walk even though the impact of federation will have no zero visibility on their experience in aussie.zone. That’s the beauty of Federation I suppose if you don’t like the way a site is run go elsewhere.

          I’m also certain that there will be a lot of kneejerk freakouts and amplification of anything Meta does going forward. So I do ask @[email protected] that you try to look at things objectively like the Mastadon admins are doing and try not to get caught up in the emotions of it all.

          I’m the first to agree that some of the things Facebook has done to society as a whole are horrendous but I also take issue with people being disingenuous or amplifying something that is complete FUD about some of Facebook’s actions in the past too. “Fake News” no matter who pushes it is still fake news.

    • Zagorath
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is clearly an “embrace, extend, extinguish” move.

      Is it? I certainly don’t think Meta is doing anything because it’s genuinely the “right thing”, but that doesn’t automatically translate to them already having a deliberate plan to kill off the fediverse by starting to use it before they add on their own proprietary features only available to their users.

      My personal opinion would be that there’s no need to pre-emptively defederate them. Keep yourself ready to defederate the instant they do something that’s directly harmful to the community at large, but until then, hold off and let their users experience what the fediverse has to offer—and let our communities benefit from their increased activity.

    • spiffmeister
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      which in turn means a large amount of content that we’ll want to view/participate in.

      Given the current content on Facebook I’m not sure more content is necessarily good.

      I look forward to them ruining everyone’s feed with ads as soon as they find a way as well.

      • Lodion 🇦🇺MA
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I look forward to them ruining everyone’s feed with ads as soon as they find a way as well.

        If that ever happens I’ll defederate them in a heartbeat.

    • Gnugit
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am considering deleting my account and removing myself from the fediverse until I find an instance/s that block Meta and any instance that is associated with them. Because fuck Meta and fuck their demographic…

    • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This is clearly an “embrace, extend, extinguish” move.

      I don’t think so.

      Meta has 2 billion active users on WhatsApp alone, plus Facebook/Instagram and now Threads. The entire fediverse has only 2 million active users - the fediverse is loose change for Meta.

      Embrace Extend Extinguish was perfected by Microsoft, until they were smashed by antitrust regulators and narrowly avoided going bankrupt. Regulators are far more strict today and Meta knows that, note they haven’t launched in the EU… The fact is Embrace Extend Extinguish would be far more likely to result in Meta being extinguished than the Fediverse. Give regulators half a chance and Threads/WhatsApp/Facebook/Instagram will suddenly be four companies, none of them owned/controlled by Meta.

      I think it’s more likely Meta expects that breakup to already be in the works - and they see the Fediverse as their protection. Look! Tens of thousands of social networks! And we have a healthy relationship with most of them!

      • phoenixdigita1
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        note they haven’t launched in the EU

        I’m wondering if the main reason for this is because they are currently linking Threads accounts to Instgram?

        I know for a while in Germany Meta did not sell their VR headsets because they required a Facebook account to work which was against a German law. Meta have since separated the requirement of a Facebook account to use VR headsets so are now no longer in breach of that law.

        https://mixed-news.com/en/meta-is-now-selling-vr-headsets-in-germany-again/

  • Treevan 🇦🇺
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I believe it’s certainly a worry. They don’t have a record of doing the ethical thing (like genocide).