If you had told me as recently as two years ago that Meta was going to create a microblogging platform, I would have scoffed. If you had told me that same network would federate over ActivityPub, I would've laughed in your face. But here we are. It's happening. We're no longer at a point wher

The Fediverse is currently divided over whether or not to block Threads. Here are some of the things people are worried about, some opportunities that might come from it, and what we need to do to prepare.

  • davel [he/him]@lemmy.mlEnglish
    95·
    11 months ago

    1. Meta is going to Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish the Fediverse
    Verdict: Unlikely

    Thanks, now I know not to take you seriously.

    Edit to add: My uBlock Origin extension is blocking “threads.net” on his site. Perhaps he’s got some skin in the game.

    • Sean Tilley@lemmy.mlOPMEnglish
      8·
      11 months ago

      Thanks, now I know not to take you seriously.

      It’s all good, I don’t even take myself seriously most of the time. Most of what I have to say is dumb shit anyway.

      Real talk, though: I legitimately think that Threads is incapable of actually extinguishing a federated network powered by open standards. Yeah, the infighting might fragment us, and the influx of millions of activities and interactions might overwhelm servers that connect with it. To some extent, they can propose protocol extensions and features and even make an ecosystem push with tooling.

      But, so long as servers are federating via an open protocol, no entity can truly snuff out the network in its entirety. An actual EEE move would not actually work here: if they ever made such an attempt, we’d just defederate them.

      My article is not a point about how we all need to shut up and start worshipping Meta, but that the things we ought to be most concerned about are in fact the things we’ve always neglected: actual user control over data, the ability for people to decide for themselves on what to connect to, and dealing with the technical requirements of hundreds of millions of people worth of traffic. And that’s just to start! If we want to reach the masses, we have to prepare for these things.

      • davel [he/him]@lemmy.mlEnglish
        62·
        11 months ago

        we’d just defederate them.

        It’s true that we can always choose to defederate from them. What’s to worry about is their meddling with the ActivityPub standard using their incomparably vast resources, and them making their own extensions to the standard in efforts to suck users back into the Borg. Things like that.

        Unfortunately, even if instance admins were to unanimously defederate, Meta—or any social media corporation—could create white-label instances to take their place, and we might be none the wiser of their control of them.

        • Sean Tilley@lemmy.mlOPMEnglish
          2·
          11 months ago

          Unfortunately, even if instance admins were to unanimously defederate, Meta—or any social media corporation—could create white-label instances to take their place, and we might be none the wiser of their control of them.

          I don’t necessarily disagree with this idea, but they would have to justify the business case to their shareholders. As of right now, the idea of a whitelabel personal silo is a limited value proposition to people not already invested in the Fediverse. If it’s whitelabel, what will Meta do? Start a new company? Inevitably, people would figure it out, and go with something else.

          It’s true that we can always choose to defederate from them. What’s to worry about is their meddling with the ActivityPub standard using their incomparably vast resources, and them making their own extensions to the standard in efforts to suck users back into the Borg. Things like that.

          I said this a little further up in the conversation, but if Meta produces some horrendous, awful version of ActivityPub that only benefits them, what’s stopping the rest of us from forking the protocol or adopting a different one? If we never switch to their version of doing things, and there’s feature breakage between us and Meta, who actually loses here?

          • davel [he/him]@lemmy.mlEnglish
            2·
            11 months ago

            If it’s whitelabel, what will Meta do? Start a new company? Inevitably, people would figure it out, and go with something else.

            I think what’s more likely to happen than my maximalist argument, is that some existing instances will get direct or indirect funding or other forms of support from Meta, and start influencing their direction.

        • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
          42·
          11 months ago

          right, just like the extended SMTP and now we are beholden to metas magnificent SMTP implementation that has extinguished all others.

          pffft. the protocol can only be extended by consortium… thats where your worry should lie. everything ive read says they have no chance bustin into that circle.

          so all thats left is 'but geez their users will get this bell and that whistle that other instances wont… yep. exactly as the 'verse intended. get off your fuckin ass and innovate. give those users a reason to not want an @threads account not based on pure fucking spite.

      • thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.world
        1·
        11 months ago

        Right, a post embed that results in anybody visiting your site gets tracked by Meta (whether or not they have an account there).

        • Sean Tilley@lemmy.mlOPMEnglish
          2·
          11 months ago

          Thank you for your feedback. In the interest of working around this, the embed has been replaced by a video that we downloaded from the announcement post (which we were trying to get anyway) and just used that instead.