I think it’s pretty safe to say that the majority of us are here to avoid another corporate takeover of our preferred platforms. It would seem to me to be a tad irresponsible to allow Facebook into our space with open arms, allowing them to hoover up our data. I would love to keep using Lemmy.world, but will happily change instances if need be, and I feel many share that sentiment.
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m actually really trying to play devils advocate… But I’m struggling.
I came to get away from the main stream socials.
I came to minimise my farmed data footprint.
I came to find other like minded people.
These principals alone are shared by quite a few I guess.
If we end up hooked up to the machine we were trying to escape from then coming here was near pointless.
I came to minimise my farmed data footprint.
I’ve read tha point frequently now. Can someone explain it in more detail? I thought the idea of activity pub is that the data is completely open so it can flow freely between different plattforms and the user is not locked in on a certain one.
Well, right now Meta is pushing, not pulling. Meaning, Threads content can be displayed on Masto, but not the other way around.
IMHO, the bigger threat is having Threads content completely dominate other activity pub clients. Other clients / communities could get dependent on it. Then Meta is basically a drug dealer with leverage.
Data collection doesn’t bother me too much. I’m not going to install their client and all of the behavior trackers that come with it, and my activity pub content is already freely available to query on the internet. If they want it, they already have access to it. Everyone does.
This article is so misleading. XMPP died for the same reason all technology dies. No one used it. Even if Google hadn’t ever used it, it would still be dead. I know this because Google Talk and ALL Google chat apps are dead. WhatsApp killed them all.
I’d even argue xmpp isn’t dead at all, it’s usage just isn’t obvious to the end user.
Data collection doesn’t bother me too much. I’m not going to install their client and all of the behavior trackers that come with it, and my activity pub content is already freely available to query on the internet. If they want it, they already have access to it. Everyone does.
I will be able to follow and see friends’ posts and sports teams’ posts through Mastodon without needing a Meta account nor install their shitty apps.
All I posted via fediverse is public already, traveling into some obscure instances, so I don’t care if Meta uses or shares my public posts.
Honestly I like the ActivityPub idea. If ActivityPub becomes mainstream I am fleeing mainstream social media.
Or you could just create your own locked down, nerdy circlejerk instance for people like you.
I will be leaving if lemmy.world defederates with threads.
Just give users the ability to block instances themselves so we can be done with this.
Stop letting other people make decisions for you.
You are either blissfully ignorant of how corporations work, or you are a corporate shill.
Well they ask the question I don’t understand why you would respond with hostility either answer the question or don’t comment.
It’s just the mob mentality taking hold.
No, its people capable of looking back and recognizing mistakes that were made, and not wanting to repeat them.
Meanwhile a bunch of corporate white knights are screaming about how its unfair to be mean to billion dollar companies, and how they totally wont do the the destructive, exploitative bullshit this time, that they’ve done every other time in the past.
Oh federated social media has been tried before? Til
Congrats, That is the most obvious and intentional wooosh I’ve ever seen.
and I bet you think you’re so clever with it.
I am serious, I don’t see how the argument that centralized social media sites like Facebook, reddit or X were “taken over” when they are outright owned by those companies. It’s a completely different situation with the fediverse were they literally can’t have the same power as they don’t hold the keys to everyone’s servers, the development of activity pub as a whole or anything of that nature. It’s literally a completely different situation.
There sure are a lot of accounts here NOT from .world throwing in their opinions
Maybe I am out of tge loop, but can’t you just create a .world account whenever you want? Isn’t the whole point of federating to split accounts and traffick up between servers?
deleted by creator
Nothing. This is a PR move by meta, nothing more. They are trying to seem “hip” and push their ads.
Meta, Google, MS, OpwnAI, etc gave akeasy scrubbed fediverse. Probably associated accounts to folks real names.
deleted by creator
By posting them?
They are not going to defederate.
Here is a tool that lets you migrate your account settings (blocked users/instances, followed communities etc.) to a new account:
Why does it seem like everyone with this position is unaware that data here is already available publicly?
Please expand on how you believe blocking threads improves your privacy.
My objection with federating with Threads has nothing to do with privacy or data access, it has to do with keeping the ActivityPub protocol alive. Embrace, extend, extinguish is a much more legitimate threat to the fediverse than data scraping ever will be. No, the danger is that Meta will begin to contribute to the protocol. At first, contribution by a corporate actor would seem like a fantastic boon to an open standard that we wish to see grow, that’s the embrace phase. But it would not be long before Meta began adding features that are exclusive to a Threads user - they’ll extend the protocol to better accomplish their ends. In this way, they seek to bring more and more users into their platform in order to take advantage of these exclusive features while maintaining compatibility with the larger Fediverse. The end goal is to have enough users that when they decide to break that compatibility, they will make off with the majority of the users from the open community; that’s the extinguish part.
This is a well-established strategy that large tech companies have employed with open standards in the past (see XMPP). I strongly believe it is in the Fediverse’s long term interests to remain defederated from Threads, and any other large corporate player. Better to have fewer users and grow organically than to federate with Meta; we may see a short term boost to the fediverse, but the long term risks outweigh any benefit.
That being said, the nice thing about the fediverse is that I can just leave this instance for another if I disagree with the admin’s decisions.
I could somewhat understand your position if the fediverse had more users, or users that would be very valuable to their advertisers, but both is not the case. Threads has a lot more active users no matter your definition of active users and the fediverse is a techno bubble with very ad-resistent users. So given the situation we’re in and the workings of the network effect for social media plattforms I see bigger upside for a federation. In the end the user can decide whether and how he wants to see content or not, that’s the beauty of federating plattforms.
Can you explain that jabber reference in more detail? The Wikipedia page didn’t help me to understand it.
The Facebook hatred is understandable and justified, but defederating with Threads is a misguided idea:
- Federation is not required for them to be able to pull the data. Even if you block an instance, they can still pull whatever they want.
- By closing down with Threads, you’ll be basically guaranteeing that that all the millions of people that are there will never be able to migrate away.
- By getting major (current) instances to defederate with Threads, it gets easier for Threads to just say “hey, we tried to be open but they still rejected us, so we are just going to go back to our walled garden.”
They’ll try to dominate the way the protocols evolve. Try to push more and more crap into it because they’re too big to ignore. Insert becoming ad, bot, corporate friendlier stuff. Fediverse doesn’t need meta. It’s nice and cosy and rather friendly here, I’ld like it to stay that way. It’s like Google dominates some “open source” and pushes browsers towards more and more DRM friendly etc. We don’t need that.
That’s not dependent on federating at all. Meta is a member of W3C, they can be a part of developing and evolving ActivityPub at any point without actively running a service with it.
That is true but they would have no incentiv to do so.
