• Kushan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s worth pointing out that the wiki article lists several examples of Microsoft using this approach but I wouldn’t class many of them as successful.

    • OverfedRaccoon 🦝@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It looks like articles today are saying that Meta is delaying integrating ActivityPub at launch.

      That said, I’m not seeing how we get to the last E, extinguish. By its very nature, ActivityPub is decentralized to avoid total control. So even if Meta embraces the technology and wants to monetize it (because capitalism, of course), extending ActivityPub would (hypothetically) be open source - or they would fork it, diverging and making their version closed, and otherwise not function in full with other ActivityPub instances (like with kbin, Lemmy, and Mastodon). Without buying the platform from the developers in full, I don’t see how ActivityPub or the greater Fediverse dies. And I could just be missing something obvious, so if you can explain how we get there, I would really like to hear and understand.

      I guess the only way I could see it is if Threads got so popular that people literally stopped using the other apps - but I also don’t see that happening, because anyone already using stuff like Mastodon are using it because Twitter, Facebook, etc, suck ass and they’ve moved away from sites like that.

      EDIT: Thanks to the one person that actually replied, I saw I was on the right track at the end, but failed to see the obvious (as I assumed).

    • whoami@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      Same reason I am highly critical of Jack Dorsey’s BlueSky and its attempt at rolling out a separate protocol. The last thing we need is for the Fediverse to be fragmented into a dozen protocols that do things ever-so-slightly differently and prevent network convergence.

      • varjen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Another reason to avoid it is that Jack Dorsey supports known anti-vaxxer and general conspiracy kook Robert F Kennedy Jr. Not the kind of people I’d want to run my social network.

        • vluhd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s bonkers, I don’t even see what there is about the man to support. He’s just an amalgam of nonsense conspiracies.

          • cottard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            My boomer parents unironically think he’s the best politician since sliced bread for the last few weeks.

      • fross@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is very easy to argue that network convergence is NOT a good thing. That’s the whole point of the “embrace, extended, destroy” point you responded to.

        • whoami@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The point being is that inventing a new protocol is either a case of Not-Invented-Here syndrome or an attempt to fragment the ecosystem - hence jumping straight into the extinguish phase. It does not paint BlueSky as a good actor in this race - especially as there are no substantial improvements over ActivityPub as far as I can tell.

  • Cras@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    212
    arrow-down
    82
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unpopular opinion but defederating Meta is a terrible idea. What are people thinking will happen? Allow them to federate and you’ll have mastodon users able to view and interact with posts from Threads without needing to be concerned about ads or tracking, without giving over any more control of privacy than they would to any other fediverse instance, and without needing to possess accounts homed within the Meta infrastructure.

    Defederate them, and anyone who wants to interact with anyone on threads will most likely need to maintain a presence on both and handover more personal data to Meta than they otherwise would.

    Defederating is actively hostile to fediverse users.

    • AnonTwo@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      163
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The idea is that at first threads.net will seem “normal”, like all the other fediverses

      Then they start adding features that either break against other servers, or straight up aren’t supported, making threads.net seem more enticing just because all the neat features aren’t on the other sites.

      Think how Internet Explorer killed Netscape with all the Page Load errors caused by ActiveX, yet everyone wanted ActiveX sites.

      Once they’ve walked through the path of least resistance and grabbed the bulk of the traffic, they just defederate from everyone.

      • lucidwielder@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        104
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yep - best option is to defederate them well before they gain traction & start creating problem by not contributing back to the protocol in a way that benefits everyone.

        I think after the community got burned by Microsoft & then google we’re finally learning.

      • Cordoro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Couldn’t any instance or app do this already? Like #peertube does videos in a way that isn’t necessarily fully federated with #mastodon. We get partial functionality everywhere and some places will have some extra things. If it is popular enough, then add it to the standard and let everyone who wants it add the functionality.

    • Risk@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      142
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      People are concerned about Facebook/Meta trying to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish ActivityPub - if I’ve understood correctly.

      • e-ratic@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        42
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        People keep saying EEE as if that’s a point in and of itself without really explaining how in this instance

        • blueshades@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          79
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If they become so ubiquitous that all you see are Threads messages, all they have to do is start adding their own extensions to ActivityPub and degrade the experience of everyone who is not using their app.

          • joshch@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            What kinds of extensions should the typical activitypub user be worried about? I don’t care if Meta adds payments or virtual avatars or whatever–if the core functionality of the Threads app is simple microblogging, it should be perfectly interoperable with that side of the fediverse.

            The more likely effect IMO (if Meta holds to their word on enabling federation on their side) is that other large social media companies (e.g. reddit, twitter) will feel pressured to federate and that will make the fediverse better, not worse.

            My account is on kbin.social but I’m working on getting kbin self hosted. When I do, I’ll absolutely be federating with Threads whether or not kbin.social does.

            • Risk@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              A cool post pops up in your feed. You click it. You are met with an overlay that says “Sorry, this post isn’t compatible with your browser. Please log in to Threads.”

              Over half your feed are Threads posts.

              Speculative example.

        • awsamation@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          78
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Embrace, they join the fediverse seemingly in good faith. Bringing their larger userbase to massively increase the size of the fediverse.

          Extend, they add some features that are convenient when interacting with their base across the fediverse. But these conveniences require proprietary software integration.

          Extinguish, once enough users and platforms are tied into the conveniences of extend, they use that to force compliance. Stricter and stricter rules on their proprietary software. Comply or die.

          The fediverse won’t be gone afterwards, but if it EEE works then we will end up very stifled.

          • okiokbar@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            The outcome then would be that Meta’s instance would be defederated/defederate itself - how would that be different from now?

            • youthinkyouknowme@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              18
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              They’d probably attract more people (even people that are here right now) before doing so. Thus creating another centralized platform.

              • okiokbar@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                If the Threads product was so superior, and Mastodon so unable to respond that millions would leave Mastodon - sure. I doubt it though…

                • catastrophicblues@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You’re severely underestimating the budget Meta can throw at this. Mastodon/Lemmy/etc. right now are largely volunteer-run as opposed to full-time employees.

                • youthinkyouknowme@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I wouldn’t underestimate them though. After all, they own some of the biggest social network platforms on the globe and have the formula to hook people up down to a t.

            • finder@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              While Threads is federated social circles and communities will have time to form. Thread users will by nature of having the support of a corporate juggernaut, be the lions share of users on the 'verse. When threads pull the plug, the Fedverse becomes a ghost town overnight and everyone not on Threads will be forced to migrate if they want to keep their social circles and communities intact.

              • okiokbar@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think few people would migrate away in that scenario. Some might create additional accounts (none of this is zero-sum). It’s not unlikely that Mastodon itself will become bigger because of it, and it’ll get hard for Meta to unilaterally pull the plug - a bit like email.

        • finder@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Here is an example of a corpo dealing a blow to an open source project. The article covers an example of Microsoft and Google killing a competing open source project(s).

          • Marxine@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Most comprehensive article on this topic I’ve seen since this Meta shenanigan started. Thanks for the read

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      96
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re acting like there’s only two situations: The entire Fediverse defederates with them, or the entire Fediverse federates with them. That’s not the case.

      I, personally, do not want to interact with anyone using Threads, because Meta has a proven history of poor moderation and of manipulating the narrative for political gain on Facebook and I see no reason to think they won’t do the same here. I am not the only one who holds this opinion. Those of us who feel this way can use instances that defederate with them, and have our way.

      If you want to interact with them, you can maintain an account on an instance that does federate with them. You do not need to have a Threads account, nor does anyone else.

      • Kushan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is an interesting article, but I don’t think it’s fair to blame Google for the death of XMPP. Google were the largest consumers of XMPP at one point, sure, but Google was in no way (and never has been) the market leader in communications applications. Google talk came and went, Hangouts came and went and so on. The argument of “When google pulled the plug, XMPP users had to use something else to keep in touch with friends” is equally true of Google messenger users as well. I don’t know anyone that ever exclusively used a Google messenger app, now or then.

        Google isn’t entirely innocent here, they definitely didn’t treat the protocol with the respect it deserved, but the development of XMPP was/is fraught with its own problems. I remember setting up an XMPP network for use in a small office as an internal chat tool, it was a nightmare of an experience. Different XMPP Clients had different levels of compatibility with different XMPP servers, many of the clients were just poor overall and the user-experience left a lot to be desired. All we wanted was a simple instant messenger for work, in the days before Slack and Teams. We ended up using OpenFire because it was developed in tandem with Spark, it was basic but worked well for our needs but any time I tried to adopt a different messenger, half the features didn’t work.

      • Marxine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Was about to say just that. I’ll love to reject people that only follows big corpos.

        • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It isn’t the people. It’s just if I already decided not to use Facebook or twitter. Why would I get back into bed with the devil on an experimental product?

    • Supermariofan67@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Meta joining the fediverse is like Raytheon joining anti-war protests. They are not there for sincere participation.

      • DMmeYourNudes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Maybe, but smart tactics means abusing their current good will and shutting them down when. It runs out.

    • A10@kerala.party@kerala.party
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      No worries once threads becomes big enough they will defederate from fediverse /s That sure will be hostile to fediverse users.

      • Kes@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I doubt they will defederate from the rest of the fediverse. If they reach a dominant position in the fediverse, they can hide behind the fediverse being open to competition to avoid anti trust actions

    • redcalcium@c.calciumlabs.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      When Thread finally enable federation, just unleash the Lemmy meme community there. We’ll see how fast they roll back the federation feature on their own after their feeds are getting flooded with beans.

    • Cyzaine@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      They have also already declared that if you federate with them, your instance has to abide by their code of conduct, so they already throwing their weight around.

      • sik0fewl@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think that’s essentially true for any instance, though. You don’t federate with instances you don’t want to.

    • ToastyMedic@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Strongly disagree here, better to cast them down now while the chance is there. No mercy or quarter provided to Meta considering their track record.

      If anyone is foolish enough to go there, let them, but do not drag us towards them.

    • Reclipse@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some instances will federate and some will block them. It doesn’t have to be all one or the other.

    • miles@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Lots of naivety here. Big corps only act in their own interest. They view the world in terms of opportunities and threats. Eating Twitter’s lunch is an opportunity. The Fediverse is too small to be worth much today, but someday it might grow up and challenge the status quo. That makes it a threat.

    • Pika@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m all for federating with them. But give the user the ability to defederate their posts/comments based off their settings. I would rather my information not be supplied to any company owned by Facebook, that’s just me.

      • ruhroe@vlemmy.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The information they could get is already public. That’s how Activity Pub works.

        • Pika@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s completely fine, but just because a knob can be lockpick doesn’t mean you leave it unlocked.

          Granted I have very little experience with activity pub, but I would expect that it should be very possible to have something similar to how defederating Works where if you don’t allow it to be sent to a specific Community it just won’t communicate.

          edit: Looking back at it though, it wouldn’t stop them from just opening a secondary instance nobody knows about, having it set to private and then just running it as an info collector I don’t think.

    • Numuruzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Threads is new - unless you meet someone who for some reason only has a threads account, just talk to them elsewhere.

      Otherwise, why is it the Fediverse user who has to get the threads account? Tell your people to make an account elsewhere. If you are conscientiously avoiding threads, you’re probably the only one in the relationship with a principle boundary to cross in this situation.

    • 332@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with you.

      Instances can defederate from meta at any point they choose, should it become necessary in the future. Until then, it is a huge boon to the more decentralized parts of the fediverse to get content from where all the “normies” are, as well as giving more visibility to non-meta instances and giving said normies a road to the less data-hungry parts of the network.

        • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          honestly, i think only half-accepting them would be beneficial. it gives meta users a taste of the fediverse but locks them out of a whole bunch of cool stuff that they could have, if they just make an account on one of the instances that they already know because it’s in the half that does federate. we just need to ensure we never repeat xmpp’s mistake: meta users should never be a majority.

          i’ll have to discuss this with our admin team, but my initial plan is to defederate meta if usage by them hits 25%. if a critical mass of the fediverse does that, in the worst case we’ll split off from them before taking damage, and in the best case we’ll actively siphon away their user base. (and if any other tech giant enters the fray, we’ll just have to include them in the 25% quota as well.)

          update: we discussed the topic and went for an immediate defederation

      • dismalnow@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        it is a huge boon to the more decentralized parts of the fediverse to get content from where all the “normies” are

        This is something I can’t understand. There’s obviously no profit motive to push fediverse to everyone, and most content is dogshit.

        Can you explain why you find either to be preferable?

      • Thassar@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Plus, the more entwined threads is with the rest of the fediverse, the harder it’ll be for them to break off. Users will be following Mastodon accounts and posting in Lemmy communities and if Meta does something to break that, they’re the ones that’ll get the backlash, not the fediverse. We’ll just continue along as normal.

    • C_M@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      While I think I agree we shouldn 't just defederate them. This is for a user to block them. And if you tell users how they can block them, it will maybe take a bit of pressure away from admins to do it.

      During the first wave of Twitter refugees , there was a lot of explaining about ignoring and blocking users. Which can never hurt IMHO. Certainly because it can decrease the load on the volunteers that run an instance

    • Xepher@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m with you. What’s the hate with Threads? It’s going to basically just be like another Mastodon instance anyway, right? Just keep using whichever instance you want and Threads will end up adding more content to the fediverse. I don’t really see the downside.

      • Hopps@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In case you’re wondering why all the down votes, it’s because of this concept:

        https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html

        Edit: Heres a summary I had in another post.

        Summary:

        • The Fediverse is a decentralized network of servers communicating through the ActivityPub protocol.

        • Large corporations like Google and Microsoft have a history of either trying to control or make decentralized networks irrelevant.

        • Google joined the XMPP federation initially but implemented their own closed version, causing compatibility issues and slowing down the development of XMPP.

        • Eventually, Google stopped federating with other XMPP servers, leading to a decline in XMPP’s popularity and growth.

        • Microsoft used similar tactics to hinder competing projects, such as the Samba network file system and open source office suites like OpenOffice and LibreOffice.

        • The strategy involves extending protocols or developing new ones to deny entry to open source projects.

        • Proprietary formats and complicated specifications are used to maintain dominance in markets.

        • Meta’s potential entry into the Fediverse raises concerns as it could lead to fragmentation and a loss of freedom.

        • The Fediverse should focus on its values of freedom, ethics, and non-commercialism to avoid being co-opted by large corporations.

        How a new federated decentralized platform can avoid this fate:

        1. Stay true to the principles: The platform should prioritize and uphold the values of freedom, openness, and decentralization.

        2. Develop open and robust protocols: Use open standards and ensure the protocol’s specifications are transparent, well-documented, and not controlled by a single entity.

        3. Foster a strong community: Encourage collaboration, participation, and diversity within the community to avoid reliance on any single company or organization.

        4. Emphasize user control: Give users control over their data and privacy, allowing them to choose which servers and communities to join and ensuring their content is not subject to corporate surveillance.

        5. Focus on user experience: Create a user-friendly interface and provide features that attract and retain users, making it easy for them to engage and connect with others.

        6. Avoid centralization of power: Design the platform in a way that distributes authority and influence across the network, preventing any single entity from gaining too much control.

        7. Promote interoperability: Support compatibility with other decentralized platforms and protocols to encourage communication and collaboration across different networks.

        8. Educate and raise awareness: Educate users about the benefits of decentralized platforms, the risks of centralized control, and the importance of supporting independent, community-driven initiatives.

        By following these principles, a new federated decentralized platform can strive to maintain its integrity, preserve user freedom, and resist the influence of large corporations seeking to control or make it irrelevant.

        • Xepher@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Really appreciate the detailed response. Makes more sense why people would be wary of it after reading through that.

        • Cras@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          My reading of that isn’t that Google killed XMPP, it’s that they thought XMPP would be useful for the userbase they brought in, they realised it wasn’t, and they ditched it. There’s no indication that XMPP had the userbase and lost it to Google, or even that XMPP had features that were stolen by Google

          • sudneo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The point is simple, the moment you have the biggest chunk of the userbase, you have more weight in establishing praxis for standards & protocols. In fact, the protocol needs to catch up with you, rather than viceversa. Google did the same with Chrome, for example. Try to start a browser today, and with all the stuff that Google forced into standards and that your browser need to comply with, you will fail. Even just forcing a pace in changes to ActivityPub can mean that a number of tools that are developed by volunteers won’t be able to keep up.

            Imagine Meta brings in 100m users. This is a fraction of their userbase, but it is 8x the whole fediverse. Imagine now that they make some change that doesn’t comply with ActivityPub, what do you do, break the tool that is used by the 90% of the users, or adapt? And what if they push changes to ActivityPub, so that everyone needs to catch up quickly: lemmy, mastodon, pixelfed, etc. How soon before some tools with less active development will die because non-compliant? (Similarly to how some browser break with some sites)

          • Bilb!@lem.monster
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            For what it’s worth, I agree with your reading, and nobody has described what I consider to be a plausible scenario for how exactly “embrace, extend, extinguish” would actually work here.

            I don’t think Meta should be given the benefit of the doubt or anything and people may have differing opinions about the likely user base for Threads, but I don’t think this is any real concern to the fediverse in general.

  • Nougat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    127
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    If Meta is running a fediverse instance, they’re doing it for money. Sure, I might be able to block Meta-sourced content from reaching me, but that doesn’t prevent me-sourced content from reaching Meta - where they can monetize it.

    Show me how to do that, and I’m on it like white on rice.

    • BNE@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah, not a fan of the ominous shadow threads™️ casts. I don’t trust them not to flood the fediverse with assorted toxic garbage to push people back towards their walled garden platforms.

      The fediverse offers something radical - a new shot at genuine self determination and a socialised, self-governing internet. That shit spells B-A-D N-E-W-S for incumbent platforms (imo) and they’re bad actors in general; they wouldn’t think twice about smothering anything that threatens their short/long term profits. Who’se going to stop them?

      Might be a little bit overly risk concious but goddamn. If I were them, I’d be trying to kill alternative ecosystems before they grew - especially if mine (metas) is both trash to use, and be used by.

      • Lee Duna@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        1 year ago

        Even worse, the Threads app is a privacy nightmare

        I bet meta really wants to keep track of people in fediverse

      • Cras@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        ActivityPub is no more radical than NNTP. Lemmy is almost an exact reimplementation of newsgroups

    • Redtitwhore@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m very new here but already feel invested in it’s goals and success. We don’t need a ton of users or to beat Reddit, etc, we need to be independent and free. Having a slice of the internet not controlled by capitalism is worth fighting for.

      I believe things like Threads.net and the Fediverse are fundamentally at odds with each other because the Fediverse is meant to be an alternative not a replacement. No one should be hoping Reddit and others fail because if they do and only the Fediverse was left i believe it would be doomed to become like them.

    • WarpScanner@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel like avoiding a corporate trap for instant growth for the sake of protecting more sustainable long term growth is still in essence a focus on growth.

      I agree with the decision to try and dodge this poison pill, but I disagree on the ideology that we shouldn’t try and get as many people on board the fediverse as possible. I want federated social media to have revolutionary power, and you can’t have power without leverage.

    • Lee Duna@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Meta is also a threat to the privacy of fediverse users

      Ross Schulman, senior fellow for decentralization at digital rights nonprofit the Electronic Frontier Foundation, notes that if Threads emerges as a massive player in the fediverse, there could be concerns about what he calls “social graph slurping." Meta will know who all of its users interact with and follow within Threads, and it will also be able to see who its users follow in the broader fediverse. And if Threads builds up anywhere near the reach of other Meta platforms, just this little slice of life would give the company a fairly expansive view of interactions beyond its borders.

      https://www.wired.com/story/meta-threads-privacy-decentralization/

    • FightMilk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s actually entirely possible that the vast majority of the team there is pro-fediverse and Meta “wants” it to succeed. But the thing about corporations is they’re fluid entities and could turn anti-fediverse overnight for no reason other than it’s the best financial move now.

      The only thing we have to ask ourselves is, at any point in the future will the best possible financial move for Meta be to begin sabotaging the fediverse? It almost seems like a certainty, doesn’t it?

      • TGhost@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        the team don’t own the product. are they even on an union ^^ I say YES for second part.

    • Roundcat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Same with Kbin. I would honestly go back to reddit sooner than I would accept being smooshed together with Meta.

    • 10_0@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lol the one good take from this account and its not even original

  • 🦥󠀠󠀠󠀠󠀠󠀠󠀠@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I tried to sign up for this junk and it immediately suspended my account at the end of the sign up process for some reason. Now it’s demanding my mobile number to appeal it.

    Get fucked Zuckerberg you tosser.

    • alextastic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That seems to be a tactic they use to obtain the pieces of info you didn’t already give them.

  • jacktherippah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Meta jumping on the Fediverse bandwagon would kill it one day. It’s an EEE strategy. We need to keep them out. Defederate from them.

  • Shippuu@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I really hope the fediverse can block out the meta crap…

  • Marc Mance@campdarling.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    @downpunxx

    This is Microsoft’s playbook, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish, it was use by Google to kill off XMPP - https://www.disruptivetelephony.com/2013/05/did-google-really-kill-off-all-xmppjabber-support-in-google-hangouts-it-still-seems-to-partially-work.html, now it will be used by Facebook to try to kill the Fediverse.

    Why is this not more widely talked about? Please share this.

    • TheInternetCanBeNice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not widely shared because the actual facts of that story don’t help the “Facebook will kill activity pub” narrative.

      Before Google Talk and Facebook Messenger adopted XMPP it was an extremely niche messaging protocol only used by nerds. After Google Talk and Facebook Messenger dropped XMPP it went back to being a niche messaging protocol used only by nerds.

      The standing of XMPP was, if anything, better off after it was abandoned by Google Talk and Facebook Messenger than before those platforms adopted it.

      So then for somebody trying to scare monger about Meta, this story doesn’t help. It hurts that narrative, and that’s why people panicing about Threads aren’t talking about XMPP.

  • f4te@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    37
    ·
    1 year ago

    i’ll join the voices saying this is bad for the fediverse, and bad for users in general. there are LOTS of normie users who are joining threads who will be shut off from learning about all the cool other servers if everyone blocks them. this will mean users who want to interact with them need to sign up on Threads, which is what we don’t want.

    what we want is that users on Threads see other servers, learn that they’re better, and migrate over.

    don’t block Threads, show them how much better we are.

    • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The entire fucking point of fediverse is that corporations can be disconnected when they try to come knocking. You’re literally arguing against the reason the platform exists to begin with.

      • DMmeYourNudes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        this is not the point of the fedeverse, this is you’re own angry brain trying to force the general public to agree with you without wanting to explain to them the whole situation.

        • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Given that I’ve been here for three years and you’ve been here 20 days I’m going to say I know a little bit more about it.

              • DMmeYourNudes@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                logical fallacies aren’t “debate shit” they’re poorly constructed arguments you resort to when you don’t have a real argument.

                • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  They are debate shit when you throw them out in average conversation. Do you say this shit to your nan or a random person in the street? Fuck no you don’t because you’d get lamped and called an absolute freak for it. Like I said - Be more normal.

                  ActivityPub was built for the express purpose of decentralising the net after the corporations had successfully enclosed and monopolised on what was originally a commons. It is literally called a commons-based protocol. Guess what’s anti-commons? Corporate monopoly seekers.

                  It would be real fucking nice if people that have been here for a handful of days didn’t suddenly try to wing-it as authorities on a topic they’re barely familiar with. I welcome you, I really do, I welcome you to a space in which we are actively harming corporations. I do not welcome this reddit behaviour and I do not welcome this attitude where you think you need to pretend an ill-informed opinion gained in just days is everything. It’s ok to say “I do not know enough about this to have an informed opinion”. It’s tiring.

                  Anyway, gonna block you for 24 hours now so we disengage from this shit and entirely unproductive back and forth. Later maybe.

    • BaconIsAVeg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      No offense, but I have plenty of ways of interacting with my ‘normie’ friends that don’t involve whoring out my personal data. If someone insists they want to hang out with you but only when they’re hosting a Pampered Chef party, they can fuck right off.

    • scorpionix@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      999/1000 users won’t do any research on how ‘this new fb thing’ actually works beyond ‘where can I sign up’. All they want is a stream of content which the greater fediverse provides free of charge. It is going to be the whole Reddit situation with one more step. Portray yourself as the shining beacon of love and liberty, slowly start creeping in more monetisation and then build a wall once you get big enough. Meta and the overwhelming majority of the user base don’t care who is morally ‘better’. That’s not how capitalism works.

    • MoiraPrime@lib.lgbt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re missing the bigger picture. If threads is federating with the fediverse, then that means Zuck is downloading and indexing a copy of everyone else’s posts OUTSIDE of threads.

      • NevermindNoMind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why can’t Meta (or any other shady company/ organization) do that now anyway. Just set up an innocent looking server, populate it with a small number of accounts to make it look legitimate, federate and start sucking in data. Do you really think every single federated server is run by people with hearts of gold and pure intentions? Your shit is already getting harvested, there’s no stopping that. They don’t need Threads if all they want is to index posts.

        Meta sucks, I get it, but I think a lot of the fear Threads is generating is way overblown.

        • MoiraPrime@lib.lgbt
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ve been on the fediverse since 2017. Anyone who’s dealt with running an instance knows how much of a pain in the ass dealing with huge monolithic instances is.

          Recently on Mastodon for example, Mastodon.social has had huge spam waves of bots creating accounts on it then randomly sending replies with spam links to anyone they can find. And of course because Mastodon.Social is a huge instance with not enough moderators, people on outside instances can’t really do anything except whack-a-mole with the constantly new accounts since the “flagship instance” has open registration. At one point the instance I use now had to suspend mastodon.social temporarily to make the spam wave stop, which of course screwed up everyone’s follows.

          The best part of Mastodon is the federated nature of the network, which gets completely screwed up when you have mountains of people on a handful of “too-big-to-suspend” instances rather than have people spread out across hundreds-thousands of smaller spaces.

        • Trapping5341@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          They can and probably have already and if not they will.

          Someone posted this to make that point clear to everyone and a few people missed the point.

        • Notorious@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          This. I’m sure it’s already happening. People training LLMs are already pointing their models towards ActivityPub.

        • MoiraPrime@lib.lgbt
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          “People can scrape your website, therefore you should just submit and allow your server to freely hand all your user’s posts over to meta upon request” is quite the take.

        • Sol0WingPixy@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, if I post something here, I’m posting it because I want other people to see it. That’s kinda the whole point of reddit-style social media.

        • MoiraPrime@lib.lgbt
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure but that doesn’t mean your instances should just hand your posts over to Meta??? And other people here are wrong, maybe lemmy does it differently, but on Mastodon when you defederate from an instance, your instance stops communicating with that instance entirely, rejecting all attempts to exchange information from that server. Anything the suspended instance saw before the suspension sticks around, but that’s basically it. If they never get a chance to even see the information, then the server essentially gets nothing.

          • offbyone@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            My point is that the data on here is purposely shared with every other federated instance, there’s no semblance of privacy and your data is shared with hundreds or likely thousands of admins by the time it’s done (more and more as the network grows). There’s no reason to trust that every admin will keep that information private, some people are already talking about putting up services to expose all the hidden information (in the name of “transparency”). It’s simply trivial for Meta or anybody else to get copies of the data because there’s no real protection from it unless you’re making your instance an island (and that’s an island from everybody, not just one specifically known to be Meta).

      • vithigar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        And defederating/blocking them won’t stop that. This just blocks the consumption of and interaction with threads content. Threads will still be able to see content on those servers. In much the same way that Lemmy.world users can still see beehaw content, despite beehaw defederating.

        • MoiraPrime@lib.lgbt
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is false. When you suspend an instance on Mastodon, it rejects all communication attempts from said suspended server.

    • fross@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Honestly, after literally over 30 years on the internet, I can safely say that this idea of bringing everyone together into one space, that will make both the space and the people better, does not work. Even back in the 90s it affected the signal to noise ratio badly. Now there are significant sets of bad actors, shitposting/meta and general noisy ignorance and hate that can easily, easily drown out any decent signal. It’s like a permanent Eternal September.

      Think of this like the subject of tolerance - typically criticised that as a philosophy, in that it would thus tolerate the very things that would undermine and destroy it. Rather, it is not a philosophy, but a social contract - if you don’t use tolerance yourself, others are not bound to be tolerant of you. Of course, I’m not talking about being tolerant/intolerant here, but using the quality of engagement and participation in a community, as a barometer for whether that user should be engaged in that community.

      Some barriers to entry are self-selection for appropriate users, and therefore a good thing - whether through obscurity, level of engagement, education or whatever. Without these, everything gets overrun and crushed. We haven’t yet found a good self-moderating system for online communities that provides everyone with a positive and fulfilling experience.

      Threads can be Threads. The fediverse can be the fediverse. No-one is forced to choose just one, and trying to force them together is going to crush the fediverse. Lemmy has about 20,000 active users. Threads got 30 million signups in 24 hours.

      • broguy89@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just gotta like… make sure they don’t echo chamber each other into January 6ing again.

    • riquisimo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Naw man, don’t play games with your abusive ex. Meta can stay over there, we can stay over here. We don’t need to talk to each other.

    • marigo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do you honestly think only the positive, friendly people would hop over? The entire fediverse will be overrun by crazy political conspiracy theories and hostile homophobic/transphobic/anti abortion stuff in no time.

        • marigo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Meta deliberately provokes that kind of stuff since rage baiting is good for engagement. They’ve cultivated and minmaxed that kind of behaviour for years. I’m sure it exists in small pockets here already, but nowhere near the same level.

            • books@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If personalities were bumper stickers… this would tell me that they were a 13 year old girl who just learned html.

              Or… ‘don’t take me serious!’

              • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Do you write screeds about the woke mob and women with blue hair too?

                It’s not normal, you’re completely right about that. It doesn’t matter. Everything does not have to look like the corporate internet and frankly advocating that everything on the internet wear a suit and tie to be “taken serious” (your words) is something you should re-examine. Spaces with different cultures are good and having a kneejerk reactionary intolerance to them is bad.

                • books@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s bull.

                  If you can’t see the relevance of looking professional than I don’t know what to tell you. It’s important.

  • teri@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Spontaneous idea of how to use copyright law for keeping Meta out of the Fediverse (more for fun):

    Introduction: Parts of the Fediverse, including Mastodon, are software licensed under the APGL license. This license is a great choice because it forces the ones running the software to grant users access to the source code. GPL for example would allow to run proprietary services based on GPL code. The AGPL does not. Companies like Meta and Google will likely not use AGPL code because it might force them to also publish their proprietary systems behind the scenes. However, this does not help much for keeping the Fediverse save. They simply implement their own software which will not be open source.

    Therefore we may need another approach. Defederating is the simplest and in my opinion currently the best. It’s easy and keeps people in control.

    However, there could be some ‘automatic’ approach using copyright law. It’s a hack which allows to use existing law to regulate the way instances can federate.:

    • instances would Federate only if the other side can provide a certain piece of information called X
    • X is protected by copyright law, therefore by default, instances are not allowed to provide X
    • However, X is released under a license which for permits to copy and distribute X under certain conditions
    • The conditions allow to tune who can legally federate
    • Conditions could be
      • The server software must be AGPL licensed
      • The instance must not be owned by a company with a certain amount of annual revenue

    Open question is, who owns the copyright of X?

    • jcg@halubilo.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Haven’t you seen what RHEL is doing? Apparently if you’re big enough you can just say fuck that. I mean who you gonna answer to? Is anybody really gonna take this all the way up to the supreme court?

        • jcg@halubilo.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          IBM decided to only provide access to RHEL source code to those with a developer subscription, effectively putting RHEL behind a paywall and putting it behind an additional license you have to accept with your subscription. I mean, this seems to be pretty clearly against the GPL license that RHEL is not only released under but also the GPL licenses of the many components that RHEL uses. The GPL has some provision for, for example, charging money for source code distribution since that does indeed have a cost, but because they make you accept a second license with your subscription you can’t just turn around and give distribute it yourself to anyone who needs it - which is what you should be able to do with any GPL software. Well, you can do it, they just reserve the right to terminate your contract if you do. So you can do it once I guess? Then afterwards you no longer have access to updates. But who’s gonna make IBM answer for this? Don’t think anybody really can.

  • ShankedMyJengaShip@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    My first reaction is this sounds like a great way to onboard more folks into the fediverse - but is this a perhaps a paradox of intolerance? Does Meta as a corporate entity have a natural intolerance to the freeness and openness of the fediverse, and if so, does it need to be violently rejected?

    • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      69
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t understand why this is even a question. Is the tragedy of the commons not taught in american education? Is Land Clearance(one example of many linked) and Enclosure not taught? (Serious question open to anyone, I do not know what history is taught outside major european countries)

      This is essential basic history to understand how land developed from being a collectively worked upon thing, decentralised, owned by everybody that worked on it, into something that was owned by a tiny tiny number of people so that they could exploit it to the maximum degree.

      Decentralisation is the creation of a commons. The goal of corporations is centralisation of power and monopoly. They are at complete polar opposites in goals. The entire point of the fediverse in the first place is to destroy the centralised power of web corporations who took what was originally a digital commons populated by thousands of sites and communities and through a form of digital enclosure turned it into a space controlled by a handful of companies.

      Learn history other than the popular military shit folks. It is essential in analysing what affects you.

      • cstine@lemmy.uncomfortable.business
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        As a product of American eduation, I can say resolutely that no, that was absolutely not taught.

        Of course, this is partially because American education sucks and partially because we never HAD common land here: everything was privately owned, after it was stolen from the people who already lived here, and then most of it had people who had no say in the matter enslaved to work on it for the people who stole the land.

        Of course, this is ALSO not really taught, because it’d make people feel sad and make the US look kinda bad, so it’s always talked about but you get like, a week of coverage on both subjects, at most.

        • beerclue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It saddens me to hear that kids in the US don’t learn about the fuckups of their ancestors, as this might “upset” them. My kids here in Germany learn about the Holocaust and they take trips to concentration camps so they learn about the past. Not to guilt them or shame them, but to teach them, so history doesn’t repeat itself. (And we’re not even native Germans, we’re east European immigrants.)

          • acupofcoffee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The problem here is conservatives call learning about our past mistakes “woke” and do everything in their power to remove this curriculum from our schools. For some reason, they look at it as “trying to destroy our great nation and traditional values” instead of “learning from our past to be a better country going forward.”

            Except military, which they teach A LOT, we spent maybe 5 days on the crimes we committed against Native Americans, but an entire month or more on the Revolutionary War. Hell, we spent longer on learning about “world religions” than we did all our mistakes. Plus, any WW1/WW2 war crimes committed by our side is not taught whatsoever.

          • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It saddens me to hear that kids in the US don’t learn about the fuckups of their ancestors, as this might “upset” them.

            Nationalism is a disease.

          • cstine@lemmy.uncomfortable.business
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m probably going to get mega canceled here but I think a good portion of it is that the Holocaust is history.

            A lot of what we don’t talk about is how we treated the Native Americans because we’re STILL shitting on them from on high. For example, the Dakota Access Pipeline is the same old shit, different century.

            Also talking about how we’ve treated people of color, and any discussion around chattel slavery, ends up being “uncomfortable” because an awful lot of people in this country don’t seem to see any problem with it and would be perfectly happy if we could toss out the civil rights acts and go back to having separate water fountains.

            TLDR: it’s ‘history’ in Germany because ya’ll arrest people giving nazi salutes, but in the US wearing a KKK robe is “free speech”.

        • JasonDJ@vlemmy.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Agreed. American history is terribly white-washed.

          Basically some dudes came over from England, Indians cooked them corn and turkey and everyone was happy. A few years later their descendants got mad at England, dressed up as the Indians and threw tea off a boat. Some shots were fired but we settled down over a piece of paper that guarantees freedom and guns for all.

          Later you might learn that “all” means white land-owning males but eventually that got expanded and now we are al happy in the greatest country in the world (yes, that part is also taught), and every morning for 180 days of the year for 13 straight years we stand up and recite a poem about how much we love our country.

          Maybe it’s changing, idk. I graduated the public school system 20 years ago. My kindergartener came home a few months ago saying he watched a video on MLK Jr in his class where they talked about his assassination. I thought that was a bit dark to go to in kindergarten but at least it’s talked about, even somewhat.

        • KairuByte@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s all but against the law in Florida (maybe other states as well?) to teach that aspect of history. Wouldn’t want the white kids to feel guilty for being white… because they know about things that happened in the past.

        • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The Tragedy of the Commons was a bullshit piece of justification for the enclosures written by racist colonial-minded eugenicists that resulted in the theft of land from the people and ultimate consolidation of that land as private property in the hands of the landowners. It argued that this was necessary because otherwise the hordes of drooling peasants would destroy it.

      • areyouevenreal@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        The whole point of the tradgedy of the commons is that publically owned finite resources don’t work. You’ve completely misunderstood the point. If you’re following that logic then centralization, ownership, and control is the only answer.

        Of course none of that applies, because what is the finite resource here? Both Meta and the fediverse can co-exist without destroying each other for want of servers or network bandwidth. The only real finite resource here is human attention - in which case federating with meta should be a good thing. This is because it increases the amount of content available on both platforms with the less popular platform benefiting the most.

        • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Christ.

          They do not aim to coexist. They aim to enclose.

          This is incredible levels of naivity. Like, literally completely and totally oblivious to how profit seeking works and what behaviours it creates.

          And the tragedy of the commons was a crock of shit made by racist eugenicist colonial-minded fuckbags, that’s the entire point of teaching it, as a way of understanding the kind of utter bullshit that gets spread when landgrabbers(in the modern day the corporations) want to go grabbing. This is why education is important, without it people go reading a wiki article and come to these kinds of nonsensical conclusions.

          • areyouevenreal@lemmy.fmhy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I didn’t read an article about it, I watched a YouTube video about it from a science and maths youtuber originally. You also didn’t elude to this in your first comment at all. I was actually going to reply to you telling you why it’s a bad concept once I learned it’s history.

            I also don’t get why your complaining to me about education. I don’t control what gets taught in the UK (my home country), I just work with what I have.

            I still don’t see how it applies to this situation in any way.

            Edit: also your username has Lenin in it. Are you a fucking tankie?

    • Zoot@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      From what I’ve seen, irregardless threads/there version on the fediverse is going to scrape any and all instances also on the fediverse. Blocking them wont necessarily help with any of this, but maybe if even communities do they wont have enough content to make it profitable? Maybe I’m naive. Well, I know I am, but any way to stick it to the man is a good idea in my book.

      • T156@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Although the scraping would happen either way, and if they really felt like it, they could just spool up their own private instance to do some scraping that way instead, even without tying it into Threads.

      • supamanc@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The goal short term isn’t to be profitable though. The goal is to pull enough users so they can effectively stunt the growth of ‘competition’.