cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/181146

I am assuming many of you have heard about the potential of Meta creating an ActivityPub enabled client (TheVerge, PCMag etc. have made articles). I was just wondering what people’s thoughts are on this, and if it came down to it should instances in the fediverse defederate from it considering it could be a case of Embrace, extend, extinguish.

There’s a DefederateMeta magazine at !DefederateMeta@fedia.io if you’re interested, which includes an anti-meta pact on cryptpad with the responses viewable on a seperate website if you care to see which instance admins have agreed.

I’m just curious what my fellow sh.it.heads think of this development in the fediverse, any input is appreciated!

Reposting at the request of can, within the context of c/agora should this instance defederate from any future Meta activity pub enabled clients? From my understanding it is more so a Twitter-clone and I’d argue a more severe problem for Kbin / Mastodon, but it is still worth discussing here.

  • 🐱TheCat@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    1 year ago

    I say let them do the extra work and incur the cost of running separate instances or scraping instances and then injecting the content into whichever ecosystem they have users sign up on, rather than giving them an easy way to do it. They will have to have a stable place for sign-ups no matter what

    • Difficult_Bit_1339@sh.itjust.worksMEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      If Facebook made a Fediverse node it would dwarf the entire population of the existing Fediverse.

      Cutting them off from what already exists wouldn’t hurt them, it would ensure that their users couldn’t migrate away while still allowing Meta to say that they’re not a monopoly because they support open protocols.

      This makes the EEE (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish) tactic a lot easier since they’d face no competition for users. A Facebook user couldn’t see sh.itjust.works and decide that they’d rather use Lemmy than Facebook. They’d never be exposed to Mastodon and decide that they like it better than Twitter.

      Meta already has all of the users federating with them means those same users can now be siphoned off by creating software that provides a better user experience than what Meta can provide with their services.

      • 🐱TheCat@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        0·
        1 year ago

        This makes the EEE (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish) tactic a lot easier since they’d face no competition for users.

        People are running around this thread spamming EEE and in this case you have argued that my suggestion makes it easier, while another user has argued that the original suggestion not to block it makes it easier. Rather than spamming it like a buzzword, break out concepts which apply and explain how.

        A Facebook user couldn’t see sh.itjust.works and decide that they’d rather use Lemmy than Facebook

        A facebook user would not understand that they were seeing lemmy or sh.itjust.works content at all. You may have forgotten that some of facebooks original sins were starving youtube content creators of views / revenue by embedding their content in a way that prevented following the link to the real content. Expect to see facebook pipe the lemmy content into their wrapper and maybe even strip the comments out, if not just censoring any mention of other social networks.

        • Difficult_Bit_1339@sh.itjust.worksMEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          They’re already Embracing Fediverse by creating instances. That can’t be helped.

          The Extend part of the strategy is to create proprietary extensions to ActivityPub/Fediverse services so users are required to use their instance rather than the public ones.

          The users arguing for de-federation would help this part the most. By isolating Facebook from the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) communities it allows Meta to dominate the sections of the Fediverse that are in its federation.

          If there isn’t any meaningful competition to Meta then the existing Meta users will use Meta extensions be default and their proprietary version of the Fediverse will be the default.

          Meta already has all of the users. They’re expanding into the Fediverse to try to avoid being regulated as a monopoly by being seen as embracing open competition. They don’t WANT competition, no corporation does. By de-federation them we’re effectively cutting ourself off from the billions of people who could potentially leave Meta’s ecosystem and at the same time removing any potential competition to Meta’s extension of ActivityPub.

          Meta joining Fediverse is better for Fediverse than it is for Meta. Siphoning off users from their platform should be the goal, not giving them an isolated pocket of the Fediverse that they can dominate easily.

          • 🐱TheCat@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            0·
            1 year ago

            Okay I think this is the crux of our disagreement.

            You are worried about people not flowing off facebook fast enough. You feel that it has ‘all the users’. I don’t know exactly this applies to the extend portion, but I can see you think it reduces our influence /reach over those users.

            I think that federating with meta makes the ‘extend’ part you mentioned easier, because lemmy users will see the federated facebook content, which may have these extra features you mention. Lemmy users may be forced back to facebook to use these features.

            I also just want to push back against your idea of metas dominance. Facebook and instagram have really low engagement when compared to tiktok. (I didnt see any comparisons to reddit, if you see any let me know. ) Sure a lot of us (north americans) have old dusty accounts that we never use, but a lot of us don’t generate content or create communities over there. Facebook has a huge network of users and tons of astroturfed advertiser content and that IS IT. They need real content to legitimize that, or they will die.

            We are already siphoning users without federating with them.

            • Difficult_Bit_1339@sh.itjust.worksMEnglish
              1·
              1 year ago

              I would agree that de-federation could work to slow them if there was a way to ensure that there was 100% compliance. I just don’t see having anywhere near that level of compliance with a Meta blockade. Many instances are going to federate with them simply for the traffic.

              On paper it sounds good, but the actual implementation will be incredibly spotty. It will create a fragmented Fediverse where people have to pick and choose which islands they want to live on and the Network Effect will drive a huge amount of people to choosing the island that Meta is on which will starve the other islands of users.

              The people who feel so strongly anti-Meta (and I am one of them) need to be able to directly compete with them. We’re not benefiting anybody by creating a tiny Fediverse island of idealists while Meta takes over the rest of the Fediverse.

              My stance on de-federation has been pretty clear I think. I just don’t think it is a tool to be used like this. I think of it like a firewall or router, it’s just a low-level tool to be used in order to ensure that the network functions. It shouldn’t be used to carve the Fediverse into multiple completely independent services. We already have a situation like that where Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc are all their own island controlled by a small group of people.

              The Fediverse’s promise is in the ability to have ONE social network that connects every person to every other person regardless of what platform you’re using. These de-federation campaigns are the antithesis of that idea. We should be looking for ways to ensure that the network is more robust and accessible to everyone… not ways to carve it up into different ideological segments.