((I’m not an expert, I’ve been reading up on things as much as I can. If there’s an error, I’ll happily correct it!))
TLDR:
- Nearly all of us distrust Meta and have the same broader goals
- We need to pick the best move to go against powerful companies like Meta
- Defederation may not be the right move, and it might even help Meta move forward (and more easily perform EEE)
- There are other options that we can spend our energy on
- It doesn’t matter for Lemmy (yet), this is more a conversation for Mastodon, Firefish and Kbin
We’ve been getting a LOT of posts on this, but the misconceptions make it harder for us to decide what to do. If we’re going to try and protect the Fediverse against large, well funded companies like Meta, figuring out the right action is important. We need to actually look at the options, consider the realistic outcomes, and plan around that.
I’m willing to bet around 95% of users on Lemmy and Mastodon CHOSE to be here because we understand the threat Meta/Facebook poses, and we want to do something about it. That’s not in question here.
So in that sense, please be kind to the other user you are replying to. The vast majority of us share the same goal here. When we disagree, we disagree on the best path forward and not the goal. Wanting to stay federated DOES NOT mean the user wants to help Meta or thinks that Meta is here for our benefit.
Misconception: Defederation will hinder Meta’s EEE
It might, but not necessarily, and it might even help the EEE. Here’s a link to some history of EEE, what it means, and some examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish. I’d recommend at least skimming it because it’s interesting (and because this isn’t the only fight)
Assuming Meta is doing an EEE move, they’re in the embrace stage. That’s not about us embracing them, it’s about them embracing the protocol, which they can do whether we stay federated or not.
Defederation can tell newcomers that the defederated instance is an island, and they’re better off joining the place where they can talk to their friends and see the content they want. We saw this early during the Reddit exodus with Beehaw, where many users hopped instances away from Beehaw.
Meta can more easily embrace if more people actively use their platform. They can more easily extend if we’re not around to explain why extending is a poisonous action. Being federated can allow us to encourage users to ditch Meta’s platform and join an open one (ex. Mastodon, Firefish, etc.)
Misconception: Defederation is the only move
Defederation is the first option that comes to mind. It sounds simple, it is loud and newsworthy, and it can be done with the click of a mouse. But if it is a bad action, then what are the good actions?
- Don’t let them have a monopoly over the use of ActivityPub. Grow the other platforms: The extend stage only works when the platform gets a near monopoly over use of the standard. That brings up the first action. If there are enough users, services and resources on things like Mastodon/Lemmy, then Meta (or any other company) can’t just extend the spec without causing their users to ditch Threads to stay connected to the content they want to see.
- Reach out to organizations in your area or line of work. Help them join Mastodon or other relevant Fediverse platforms. I’m sure the for-profit companies put money into this process, so brainstorm and reach out
- Add your Fediverse accounts to the bio of your other accounts, and share posts from the Fediverse elsewhere
As long as there is a healthy community away from Meta (ex. what we have right now), then they can’t extend & extinguish.
- Protect the Standards and share why it is important
- Share posts from experts about strict adherence to standards, support regulatory and legal advocacy (interoperability requirements etc.), and educate other users about the risks.
(I didn’t want to say more here because I’m not an expert, I’m happy to edit more points in)
Misconception: We should still defederate because of Privacy Risks
Not necessarily (and likely not at all?)
Meta is notorious for gathering data and then abusing that data, so this is an issue to consider. However, the way that activitypub works, the outgoing data is publicly available. Defederating with Meta doesn’t prevent that, and federating doesn’t give them any more data than they could get otherwise.
Misconception: Lemmy instances need to decide
This is a big point: It doesn’t really matter for Lemmy right now, one way or another.
It’s more of an issue when data starts coming IN to Lemmy from Mastodon and Meta’s Threads (or out from Lemmy to Threads). See below
Edit to add: For now it might even be good to defederate from Lemmy as a symbolic gesture. My instance is defederated, and I don’t plan on trying to change that. Ultimately it doesn’t change much
Legitimate risks from Federation with Meta, and more effective ways to counter them
-
Algorithmic Amplification: Meta’s history of using algorithms that prioritize engagement can amplify harmful or divisive content. These algorithms are not public like it is with Mastodon and other FOSS platforms.
-
Misinformation and Content Moderation: All Fediverse platforms will have to work on content moderation and misinformation. Platforms like Meta, focussed on profit and advertising, will likely moderate in a way that protects their income. Those moderation decisions will be federated around.
-
Commercialization and User Exploitation: Meta’s for-profit nature means it’s incentivized to maximize user engagement, at the expense of our well-being.
-
Additional Data on how the free fediverse interacts with their platform (this one is harder to make a counter for)
Counters:
- Promote user control over their feeds, and develop USEFUL but safe and open algorithms for the feeds
- Flag content and users from risky platforms, with a little warning icon and explanation (ex. ‘Content is from a for-profit platform, and it may ___’)
- Implement features so that users can opt in or opt out from seeing content from risky platforms. In particular on explore/discover/public feeds, so it doesn’t affect content the user is following.
- Develop strict community guidelines that can get Meta (and other companies) sent into the ‘blocked by default’ bins mentioned above. (edit: There’s a good point here that if Meta’a Threads is full of hatred or poor moderation, then blocking them is the right move)
Final point: Evaluate things critically. Don’t even just take my word for it. I doubt Meta or other groups care enough about Lemmy yet to spread disinformation here, and every post I’ve seen promoting defederation feels like a good faith attempt for something they believe in. But it’s still worth thinking about what we’re supporting.
Sometimes what feels like a good move might not help, and could even make things worse.
AFAIK, Meta cannot modify algorithms in lemmy code / created in networks inside lemmy instances (if that’s s thing) unless meta starts running those instances themselves. No doubt, using meta’s instance and client will let meta do what it wants to do.
I think the harder problem here is meta isn’t a curated collection of 300+ instances we can block when we don’t like the instance (e.g., instances != facebook communities). Meta is just going to come online with a large instance with millions of users. It’s kind of hard to judge all of meta users at once, as an instance provider. So, I guess instances who don’t want meta, don’t get meta. Fair.
I agree with all the misconceptions you’ve cleared up, and you’ve also made a great case for why people would want to join a smaller private instance instead of facebook. I guess I just don’t see the present threat to the fediverse with meta (aside from instances being bombarded with trash that needs to be defederated from that instance). There’s absolutely an existential threat, but the beauty of open source is that as long as there are devs willing to work on it, it can still exist - meta cannot buy the current version of lemmy we are all using and prevent it from being run, for example.
deleted by creator
There will be a blocklist, then.
But fundamentally we can do very little to prevent the inflow of random instances - if only instances will implement whitelist federation, but that obviously hurts decentralization and adds a lot of headache
I think that’s a bit of an overreaction. the internet at large has many domains. domains are owned (publicly) by corps - filtering would be pretty easy. I also don’t see any benefit for facebook to behave this way. Facebook doesn’t need the fediverse - most of their users already think of them as “the internet”. Facebook has already taken over the internet (and they really haven’t, as it’s very possible to avoid them).
The internet has always been decentralized. It will always be decentralized. Your attention dictates the amount of control the companies you give attention to have power over you.
It’s neither reaction nor overreaction; it is simply a statement of possibility. One of many, because Meta has not told us what their real intentions are, and no one could believe them even if they did.
meta could also make the world go kaboom after building up its own army after building its own nation-state.
just a statement of possibility.
deleted by creator
Your concern is that the people who run one website will have a lot of meta links on it? A website most lemmy users haven’t ever visited?
What demographic of people are:
How is this demographic so important to facebook that they need to try to be the top 50 links on one website? Do you understand decentralization?
If my username checks out, what does that say about you?