I’m just curious what you folks think. The whole idea of the Fediverse seems to go against everything Meta has stops for with their existing platforms (Facebook and Instagram).
What are they after? Are they going to try and infiltrate it so they can get people’s data and content? Are they trying to monetize it? It just doesn’t add up. I feel like most people on the Fediverse already would agree that we don’t want Meta’s platforms to access our content.
Please excuse my ignorance if it doesn’t work like I think it does. I’m relatively new to the Fediverse myself.
I think they want to destroy it. They don’t want us to have freedom away from their data collection and ad bombardments.
Best way to do so is to get in. Some one posted an article about what they want to do.
Here the article https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
This is why Mete wants in.
Holy shit thanks for the link. That’s a very good write up explaining why we should be very wary of Meta’s intents. And the wiki page link was gold. Fuckers truly want to Embrace and Extinguish.
You’re welcome. I thought it was a greart write up and help me understand what was going on as well.
Yes, a very good article. I have the feeling I have another peace of the puzzle now.
It seems so weird though. The fediverse is small. Extremely small. They are taking on Twitter. A million users on mastodon doesn’t matter when Twitter has 250 million.
I agree that fediverse is only a few million. But the fediverse is also highly populated with refugees from twitter and reddit at the moment, who just want another stable and popular social platform similar to what they’ve always used.
If anything, the fediverse will have people with stronger opinions: either they’re willing to change social media because of a couple bad changes (and aren’t too attached to the fediverse), or they’re hardcore fediverse fans who are less likely to move to threads than your average twitter user.
If we assume it to be a 50% split, then meta has a chance at stealing half the fediverse by promising a larger user base, thus more content, but on the false premise that Threads will be backwards compatible with the fediverse forever.
Agreed. All this reminds me a little of some of the discussions that inevitably appear in professional-photographer circles whenever some online service with photo-sharing features changes its terms and conditions. Everyone is convinced that the giant multinational company is spending millions in a laser-focused effort to steal business from photographers, because “making money with photographs” is the lens through which they view the world. And from that point of view it’s hard to see that the entire industry of professional photography is too tiny to be worth Google’s or Meta’s time to even try to steal.
One of the things techngiants do is to get control of new startups and trends before they become big, and either consume them or destroy them.
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
And weirdly, a lot of startups have the goal of being bought out by a mega-corporation in a couple of years and live off of that money.
Which does make sense. Most people work to make a living and what a better plan is there than to make something that someone pays a ton of money for and stop working. Or after that do something that you want instead of have to.
If their reaction is this strong even though fediverse is this small, it means we have something incredible and should fight for it and prevent coporations from gaining ANY influence over it. I doubt we will get any more chances if we blow this one.
Twitter’s user count doesn’t even register to Facebook, either. They’re trying to be the only option
The bright side is that given the open nature of decentralized networks, nobody is forced to use whatever Meta shits out.
Not disagreeing per se, but for sites like Twitter and its clones, you go where the people you care about are. I have a mastodon account but I couldn’t tell you the last time I opened it because nobody I follow is there, and I don’t really care about following general topics or hashtags.
As opposed to a site like Reddit, the content is what matters, and I can get that content anywhere (RSS feeds, blogs, here, etc)
Yeah but people will. And the article explains how this can lead to the “death” of the open-protocol version.
There was a big Lemmy discussion about that article 2 weeks ago too: https://lemmy.world/post/467454
I remember that. So the question begs how does the current federated ecosystem stay away from that? Never trust any company if they say they want to work together?
There a post suggesting that it’s a EU law they are trying to avoid. It states that if a platform is large and a gatekeeper for information, then certain laws will apply. But by being in the fediverse that information is accessible by not-meta platforms, so the laws won’t apply (they will argue).
I am personally guessing it’s this option, people keep saying the idea is to EEE but I don’t think this would be the most effective use of Meta resources since they should be focusing yheir efforts at beating twitter.
What’s EEE?
Embrace, extend and extinguish.
It was a more common tactic back in the day for tech giants to destroy competition omfor open software specifically.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
2 birds, 1 stone…
Jajaja I thought about that while typing it out but I still dont believe this is about EEE, Meta hasnt operated with that mindset yet in other spaces from what I know and I feel this is more that a kneejerk reaction of people not liking big corporations associating it with the idea that big corps want to kill the freedom that these spaces bring to online communities.
But I believe in the design of the fediverse and the resilience of the people, I dont think that a few platforms hoarding the big majority threaten the entirety of the fediverse, as long as people can self host their own instances since we can ensure there will always be spaces for communities like this, even in worse case scenarios like Meta just having so many features that other platforms cant compete in those terms I still feel a niche of the same people that are building this today are going to stick with it, and thus we can keep this going even if we are forced to defederate at a later date or they defederate us.
I fully believe it has to do with moderation and wanting to offload the costs of moderation. Moderation is expensive and requires whole teams, but if they just direct that federated instances need to comply with Meta’s moderation standards, suddenly they’re not directly responsible (or legally liable) for that stuff. It also has to do with ads - once Meta becomes dominant, they can say “we will serve federated ads and you have to deal with it or defederate from us.”
Has anyone Defederated yet? Is Threads even live to Defederate from yet?
I did on my mastodon instance. The known URLs are threads.net and threads.instagram.com. Threads is live apparently but not federated yet (that’s “coming soon” - I believe Meta pushed Threads early because Twitter is shooting themselves in the foot with rate limiting (individuals may not use TweetDeck but brands sure do).
Afaik Threads hasn’t started federating with any instance so it’s still siloed for now.
I think new laws in Europe have something to do with it. EU is trying to force the big platforms to interoperate. Facebook/Meta is of course one of the most targeted. So I think their thought is by signing on to the existing fediverse, they can say hey we are playing nice no need to regulate us further
Hadn’t even considered this, but I think you’re onto something. Even if it’s not the main goal, that could definitely have factored into the decision.
@Hyrulian@lemmy.world I suspect it is to whitewash the fact that they are walled gardens
“look! we are activitypub-interoperable. it is not our fault everybody wants to use our service instead of mastodon!”
That’s seems pretty likely. It really rubs me the wrong way that they specifically name drop Mastodon in the sign up page for Threads. It definitely seems like a way to avoid being held accountable for having a monopoly.
I think that Meta is trying to beat Twitter on microblogging. Using ActivityPub, like Lemmy and Mastodon, is just a fast and convenient way to start up quickly. The Fediverse will suffer with Thread invasion, as “colateral damage”.
Until most have blocked all of the communities on their instance, at least, no?
Ploum makes a very interesting point on his blog: https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
They talk about examples like Google Chat being XMPP, becoming very big, changing the standards that look like other XMPP users/clients are subpar and then killing “federation” but no one complains because everyone uses their product, so it’s not a big disruption.
While I don’t think this is it, because Facebook is huge and ActivityPub isn’t (XMPP was the most used protocol then), this happened and can’t be ignored.
Disagree with a lot of the stances here.
Meta has been hit hard by a series of failures over the last decade.
Continually missing first place, the company has broadly pivoted towards more open partnership in order to boost their offerings.
For example, their LLM weights being released to researchers when the product was clearly behind OpenAI and even Google.
Playing nice with federated networks fits into this.
Meta is betting that open platforms do well enough to corner a non-insignificant part of the market and are hoping to leverage compatibility with it in order to protect and differentiate their fledgling product from competition.
None of this means they aren’t still going to try to siphon every detail they can to maximize ad revenue for users.
But they aren’t trying to kill or sabotage the fediverse (which they rightfully don’t seriously see as competition in itself). They are hoping it is successful enough that it helps give them an edge against walled garden networks backed by competitors’ money.
In general, expect to see more openness from Meta in the coming years for much of what they do. They finally realized they aren’t Apple and can’t get away with siloing their products within the market.
I can agree with all you are saying, while also agreeing with the stance that Meta’s presence is corrosive by its’ very nature.
There will be a sugar rush up front, diabetes down the road.EDIT: They WILL find a way to insert themselves more severely if and when this thing grows.
Microsoft pioneered (or maybe popularized, not sure) embrace, extend, extinguish. I’m sure this is a version of that.
What are they after: Money Are they going to try and infiltrate it: Obviously Are they trying to monetize it: Obviously It doesn’t add up: To them it does I feel like most people…: I’ve got some bad news for you
The same thing cancer always does: To spread and ruin.
*metastasize
Zing!
I’ve been trying to figure this out myself. The best I can come up with is that Meta wants to increase their user base as fast as possible and this is one way of doing it.
Another thought I had is that they could be thinking of getting Twitter to add ActivityPub, and then federating with Twitter. Meta could then claim all users can use their platform.
Honestly? Zuckerberg has always had an obsession with the next step as it relates to how people use the internet. He has a track record of trying to catch lightning in a bottle again and getting struck by lightning instead, to the detriment of his own company.
Just look at the Metaverse, he got obsessed with a relatively new technologies (vr and blockchain) and wasted billions of dollars chasing the same high he once got when Facebook took over.
Maybe he sees money in the fediverse, but i think Zuckerberg is just getting excited about a new technology like the rest of us. Unlike the rest of us however, he will likely end up spending billions of dollars continuing to chase that high that he got from Facebook.
Another thought is that they’re not trying to kill Mastodon, they’re trying to kill Twitter.
Mastodon has a bit of a community already, so by implementing ActivityPub, Meta can make its platform seem bigger than it is by pulling in Mastodon content. Gives it another edge over Twitter.
Best case scenario is Threads sees ActivityPub as just the cost of doing business. That way, even people who won’t use your platform are still interacting with it. Downside, people on your platform can leave for a federated alternative and not miss out on any content. Not sure if that downside makes up for the potential gains.
I think the default approach needs to be defederate first unless Meta shows actual interest in developing the fediverse with good intentions. If Threads become the majority provider of content to the fediverse and then we defederate, we lose all that content. It could lead to Mastodon, Lemmy, and Kbin withering and dying as everyone goes where the content is.
I will block any threads communities and i think a lot of us feel that way. Right now. It’s easy to say it when they’re not out there sharing cat pictures. When the sub you miss from r/ shows as a threads, what will you do?
I don’t get how threads would interface with Lemmy, I thought it was a microblogging service like Twitter?
I think Zuck looked at the hosting bills and thought: “How do I get the suckers to host their own data while allowing me to control and harvest it?”
