Corporations don’t just sit out on new technologies, and no matter how hard you try you can’t force them to. Defederating from Meta’s new project preemptively is naive, and will not do much of anything.

Protocols are going to be adopted by corporations, whether we like it or not. SMTP, LDAP, HTTP, IP and 802.11 are all examples of that. If it ends up that meta is able to destroy the fediverse simply by joining it, that is a design flaw on OUR end. Something would then clearly need to be different in order to prevent future abuse of the protocol.

FOSS is propped up by corporations. By for profit corporations. If you want to stop those corporations from killing projects, you put safety guards up to make sure that doesn’t happen. You don’t just shut them out and put your head in the sand.

  • femboy_link.mp4@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    126
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If it ends up that meta is able to destroy the fediverse simply by joining it, that is a design flaw on OUR end.

    “Simply by joining it” is not an accurate representation of what will happen in the slightest. Meta is not some scrappy little Lemmy instance operator relying on donations to keep the lights on, they’re one of the biggest companies in the world who simply do not care about fair competition or open standards, and they have a proven track record of using that position to either buy out or destroy competition.

    When Meta have so much money that they can simply outspend any other fediverse platform and become dominant that way, how is that a design flaw on our end? You can make a project as resistant to corporate overreach as you like, infrastructure to run it still costs money and there is no fediverse operator on the face of the earth that is going to be able to outspend Meta when it comes to infrastructure and R&D. How is defederation not an appropriate response when smaller instances are crippled under the inevitable load stemming from Metas users?

    Corporations have been embracing, extending and extinguishing FOSS projects in the tech space for decades now, and their demise has rarely been because of a fatal flaw in the projects themselves. It’s been an intentional play by Microsoft, Google et al to ensure that there is no viable open alternative to their walled gardens. Trusting them in any capacity is naïve at best and catastrophic at worst.

    I encourage you to read this blog post which outlines these concerns much better than I can: https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html

    • ryan@the.coolest.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      1 year ago

      When this was linked a previous time, I wrote up a reply to it which I think applies here as well, so I’m gonna shamelessly copy and paste myself 🙂

      I think the big thing to take away from that article is… XMPP developers cared so much about retaining federation with Google Talk that they “became watchers and debuggers of Google’s servers” as it is put there. Google came in and said “this is our house now, adapt or die.”

      For our current fediverse, it’s important I think, as a community, we put our foot down with Meta and say “no, this is our house. If you don’t adapt to us, we don’t federate with you. If you deviate from the ActivityPub protocol or our other implementations that we do above the ActivityPub protocol (things like boosts/upvotes/downvotes standards as agreed upon by Lemmy/kbin, for example), you will break federation with us, and we will be okay with that.” We cannot become the Meta watchers.

      ActivityPub is just a protocol and they can use it. It doesn’t mean they have to be compatible with us. Let them have their Twitter/Instagram hybrid application. Do we care that much whether we can or cannot see their posts?

      To your point, many of us will defederate, either out of politics or financial necessity. There’s rumors milling around that Meta / Threads will only initially federate with a few trusted larger instances and be monetarily compensated for it (aka those who will make a deal with the devil to moderate - more on my thoughts on that here).

      It may come to the point where a lot of us are running on our own smaller “Fediverse”, intentionally divorced from Meta and those instances which have federated with Meta and taken their advertisements and paid posts. If this is the case, we must take the bad with the good - we will always be smaller and niche, and our less techno-idealistic friends will not join our tiny Fediverse because the barrier to entry will remain high.

      • therealpygon@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        It will follow the EEE flow along with their normal anti-competition tactics. First, they embrace: their interest in federation is only to give them the access to content that will make their platform not look empty, allowing them to put their coffers to work on drawing the majority share of users. Then they will extend: they will make sure their platform is compatible with ingesting other server content but others will be unable to federate their content (they will become “incompatible” later, due to “features”). Then they will extinguish competition: they’ll cut off what little engagement is left with those (inbound only) federated servers because they no longer need them and the majority of the remaining users will move to their platform because that is where the activity is.

        Then Kbin/lemmy will be just like all the other random phpbb instances that no one really uses. Being naive won’t make things any less likely, yet there will always be gullible people who argue that “of course they will embrace the technology” and that everything else is just non-sense/wouldn’t have worked anyway/blah.

        It doesn’t take long for the largest servers to have operating costs that they will happily allow Meta to burden in exchange for nearly any concession. The main problem is that, while Kbin/Lemmy is federated, it is federated in a manner that still places content in silos and allows single servers to “own” those spaces. It hasn’t really fixed the problem yet, it just spreads the problem out over a few more servers. Until spaces are universal (every server owns a slice of that community, spreading out the community instead of just the users), it will remain ripe for EEE.

        • ryan@the.coolest.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Completely agreed on the concept of needing to federate out entire spaces (magazines / communities) - this is a huge gap currently, especially on kbin where nearly every community (and nearly every user) is on kbin.social .

          My thought is that Lemmy and kbin, after fixing and updating core functionality (easier said than done), need to jump on the idea of instances having magazines/communities that pull from multiple other sources, rather than federating each community independently - e.g. I could have an @android which is pulling from @android , @android , etc, and the experience is relatively seamless - if someone drops out, yes we lose a lot of content, but others pick up the slack.

          This would require more overhead from admins and instance owners to manage which other communities their own communities are pulling from, but I think it would be worthwhile for a better overall user experience and to help decentralize these communities in general.

          • ryan@the.coolest.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I can’t edit and have my edits federated out (edits federate if someone is following you, not if you are following them) so I want to point out that those links are somehow pointing to users instead of communities, whoops. I was referring to e.g. https://the.coolest.zone/m/android being a collection including contents on that magazine, contents from https://kbin.social/m/android , contents from https://lemmy.world/c/android , etc.

            • dosidosankofa@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              … so I could host an instance with a magazine that is essentially a digest of federated instances, and I can add/remove based on whatever aligns with my principles?

              I don’t think I have that right, sorry but if you could explain it a little differently, I’m still trying to understand how the fediverse is.

              • ryan@the.coolest.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                So, as an example. I am on the.coolest.zone which is where my account is registered. I have a magazine on it called fediverse@kbin.social, which is where I am viewing this thread. In fact, you will be able to view it here: https://the.coolest.zone/m/fediverse@kbin.social

                I have only three actual magazines on my own instance - random (this is necessary for all kbin instances to collect uncategorized posts), BestOfBlind, and Android (which was my attempt to create a magazine that collects threads based on hashtag, but it’s not working right). Everything else is a magazine which is actually a federated version of either a kbin magazine from another kbin community or a Lemmy community from a Lemmy instance.

                The couple of things that seem to be missing or broken right now:

                • As stated, trying to get a magazine going based on hashtag does not seem to be working.
                • There’s no way to collect up multiple communities into one, so I have separate magazines for android (kbin.social) and android (lemmy.world). That’s a little annoying!
                • As far as I can tell, you can’t delete a magazine yet. If I federate a magazine / community and decide I actually don’t want it on my instance anymore (or I created m/android to test the hashtag and found it doesn’t work right), tough luck it seems - I’m stuck with it.
                • Hosting costs - Of my 80GB VPS, I appear to have used about 60GB so far just in federating other content to me. This is going to become a problem within this week! I don’t know what to do about that or whether there’s a way to prune old content or what! (I don’t want to re-host everyone’s memes, as dank as they are!)

                kbin and Lemmy are both very new applications, so these will likely shake themselves out over time, but it’s a bit of a rough experience right now. 😅

          • Kierunkowy74@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            especially on kbin where nearly every community (and nearly every user) is on @kbin.social .

            But kbin.social is fully compatible with Lemmy with almost the same number of users and many more communities (dozen of them has more subscribers than most-subscribed /kbin magazine). Maybe /kbin as a platform is much centralised. Threadiverse, not so much.

      • Spzi@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        as a community, we put our foot down with Meta and say “no, this is our house. If you don’t adapt to us, we don’t federate with you. If you deviate from the ActivityPub protocol or our other implementations that we do above the ActivityPub protocol (things like boosts/upvotes/downvotes standards as agreed upon by Lemmy/kbin, for example), you will break federation with us, and we will be okay with that.”

        I’m afraid we will lose if we accept them until they do something bad. Given their track record, that’s just a matter of time. If we let them become important to the fediverse as long as they play nice, the final decision could be disastrous for the fediverse when they stop playing nice.

        So the right thing to say seems for me: “No, this is our house. We don’t federate with you.”

        • ryan@the.coolest.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          That is a completely valid take here. My partner who runs our Mastodon instance will be preemptively defederating with Threads (on my suggestion), so I do agree with you, but I realize not everyone in the Fediverse may share that take - it’s a weighted scale where one end is “mass adoption of a Web 3.0 decentralized Fediverse” and the other end is “but adoption in which most people are on Threads will be centralization anyway, so we will have already failed.”

          I think in any case it may not matter, as I believe Meta / Threads will only federate with instances that agree to follow their moderation standards - after all, Meta likely doesn’t want porn and Nazis federated to their communities because then they can’t run advertisements. As a Fediverse community, we’re pretty good at taking care of the Nazi thing, but Mastodon’s got an awful lot of porn on it.

          It will really depend on which admins take that deal to be beholden to Meta’s standards, potentially opening themselves up not only to huge moderation concerns but to a future requirement of taking advertisements. I hope large instances will not. I would prefer to see the Fediverse operate separate from Threads, who will be using the ActivityPub protocol but not part of the larger Fediverse. Similar to how the conservative “truth.social” uses the Mastodon application and ActivityPub but is not part of the Fediverse because it is closed off.

          A little off topic, but I was very surprised Reddit didn’t pursue a similar approach of “we will lower greatly the costs of API but we will serve advertisements in the API as regular posts, so you must display them and can’t strip them out.”

      • withersailor@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why will Meta care? To their large user base, they are on the “federation” and we’ll be the odd ones out. Their users won’t care either. They’ll just use it. And Meta can spin up any number of servers they want. Any company can.

    • lakemalcom10@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      1 year ago

      Echoing this, please read the linked post. There is a big difference between technology and it’s implementation vs the community of users of it and what they are using to do so.

    • witch_of_winter@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Strongly agree, any instance that doesn’t defederate meta should be defederated. Meta will forcefully overrun the fediverse for profit.

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      When Meta have so much money that they can simply outspend any other fediverse platform and become dominant that way, how is that a design flaw on our end?

      It’s a design flaw when simply “outspending” other fediverse platforms allows you to dominate them. There are ways to design a system where that’s not possible.

      The fact that those other fediverse platforms can defederate from the “big money instance” if they don’t like what it’s doing, for example, is a part of the design of the fediverse that can help counter influence like that. You can’t force other instances to federate with you even if you have an enormous amount of money, and even if you did manage it in specific cases other people without that vulnerability can just spin up new instances.

      We’ll see whether this sort of thing is “enough”, I guess, because Meta is coming one way or the other. If it turns out that stronger defenses are needed then there are other technical methods that could be used to strengthen the decentralized nature of the fediverse.

      • anthoniix@kbin.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think defederation is not really that useful in this case, because then your users will just leave and sign up for the platform where they can view where the most content is. Although I do agree with your general premise.

        • Niello@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Then it’s no different than them just jumping back to Facebook or other corporate owned social media like the current situation. That’s not a lost. The lost is if they are allowed to federate in the first place and people get used to it. But even then as the concept of enshittification becomes more well known more users will also be resistant to the idea.

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          If Meta is actually providing the content that people want, then what’s the problem?

          If it’s not, then people won’t leave your instance to go sign up for a different one that’s not suiting their needs.

          • anthoniix@kbin.socialOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            The situation I’m thinking of is one where Meta creates Threads (or whatever it will be called), and then a bunch of people defederate. In that scenario, there will of course be big servers who choose to federate with Threads. Given Meta’s reach and influence, they will undoubtedly have one of the bigger instances, so a lot of politicians, journalists and everyday people will go there.

            Making it so people can’t see that content will just make the fediverse become more centralized, because people will just go to the bigger instances that will allow for them to see that content, or just go sign up for threads. I think that’s bad because it creates further centralization, even if they’re providing the content that people want.

            Even though I know a lot of people disagree, we need all types of content in order for this place to grow. I’m not talking about any far-right nonsense, but even garbage like tabloid fodder and stupid meme bullshit will keep our networks alive and users engaging. The easier it is for the average person to use the better. If the point is not profit, then it must be to allow people to come together and talk about almost whatever with almost whoever, and wherever.

            • FaceDeer@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Making it so people can’t see that content will just make the fediverse become more centralized, because people will just go to the bigger instances that will allow for them to see that content, or just go sign up for threads.

              Perhaps I’m misunderstanding something, but it sounds to me like you’re still saying “if Meta is providing the content that people want and it’s not available elsewhere then people will go to Meta for it.”

              And that seems fine by me, in that case they’re competing by providing the content that people want. However, not everyone wants the same thing. I have no interest in “following” politicians or celebrities. A lot of the sorts of conversations I’m interested in do not benefit from having a huge number of people in them. So even if Meta is some kind of juggernaut there’s going to be people (like me) who don’t want to participate in a juggernaut. The smaller defederated instances will still be attractive.

    • TheEntity@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I agree with OP’s title on the social side of the problem, not the technical one. If we allow them to destroy the Fediverse, then it was already lost to begin with. It’s not a matter of technology, it’s a matter of whether the key people are able to keep it out of the corporate control in the long run. If they can’t, then it was all just a matter of time.

      EDIT: I don’t imply it’s a particularly useful thought. It might help with coping though if it would ever happen. Let’s enjoy it while it lasts and hope for the best!