• yetAnotherUser@lemmy.ca
    0·
    10 months ago

    I should probably migrate my mastodon.social account, even though I barely use Mastodon. Any recommendations for cool servers with cool people?

  • Tiger Jerusalem@lemmy.world
    0·
    10 months ago

    People keep parroting that Threads will kill us all but won’t explain how it could happen to the fediverse. As in, actual steps. Because Flipboard federated and I’m not flooded with news posts. Mastodon is used for Nazi instances and I’m not flooded by Nazi content, even if the maintainer don’t block that particular instace due to not knowing it exists.

    No, XMP is not a valid example. It requires specific people to be on that specific platform for you to connect with them, like iMessage and WhatsApp. The fediverse is nothing like that.

    Can someone explain exactly how EEE will happen? Technically? Other than FUD?

    EDIT: thank you all for the replies, there’s definitely some good points that are worth considering that I couldn’t find elsewhere.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
      0·
      10 months ago

      i just want to point out that, in the same way XMP is not a valid example of EEE, neither is Flipboard a good example of a massive megacorp federating. Flipboard’s algorithms have never incited violence in Myanmar and that makes 100% of the difference.

      my concern is not EEE, and I agree that i don’t get why that’s the focus.

      my concern is that we are dealing with Meta—an absolutely massive, soulless corporation which has shown dozen upon hundreds of times that it will prioritize the growth of its shareholders’ paycheck well before the afterthought of caring if its algorithms end up wreaking addiction and violence.

      call that FUD if you want, i call it learning from well-documented experience.

      • masterspace@lemmy.caEnglish
        0·
        10 months ago

        Again, you’re not actually making an argument about meta doing anything to make the fediverse worse than it is, you’re not even arguing that metas actions in those other situations are directly applicable and will happen here, you’re just saying “look at these bad things that Meta did before, sure other bad things must happen”.

        That is the literal textbook definition of a FUD argument.

        • Powerpoint@lemmy.ca
          0·
          10 months ago

          There’s no good product that Meta has ever touched that’s been made better after their involvement. Why go for bat for a company that has consistently shown it’s goal is to make things worse for the end user?

        • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
          0·
          10 months ago

          Well look, I don’t have enough insight into the design or backend for Lemmy or mastodon, but Facebook has heavily invested into their network, and likely aims to grow.

          How could they do that? All of this seems blockable on the client end (meaning I’m not good/shitty enough to work at Facebook) but imagine:

          • an algorithm takes a selection of high ranking fb posts and cross-posts to Lemmy, far faster and more frequently than regular users. Oh, you’ll need to login to read.
          • threads could wholesale repost other users and their comments, but behind a threads login wall

          Basically do some scummy behavior using our public statements, questions and comments, all to get more attention devoted to what’s happening on their site (and its associated ads).

        • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
          0·
          10 months ago

          “the leopard bit my hand the last 14 times i pet it, but it’s FUD to learn from the past so here goes number 15 :)”

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          0·
          10 months ago

          Let’s flip this around: Show me a thing that Meta has touched that hasn’t turned to shit. Why risk the same fate when we don’t have to? What is meta bringing to the table that would warrant foolhardiness on our part?

          See the opposite of FUD is naivete, hubris, make-believe, not something one wants to be engaged in either.

    • bitwolf@lemmy.one
      0·
      10 months ago

      Here’s an example I can see happening.

      Threads will want to implement post reactions to maintain parity with Facebook. Threads expands the ActivityPub spec to include reactions.

      Now, every other instance will not be compatible with reactions. Users complain they cannot see reactions.

      Admins have two choices now:

      • Refuse to implement reactions because they are not part of the spec. Users leave and join threads.

      • ActivityPub adds reactions to the standard, all instances must now support reactions. Meta has now started dictating the spec.

      I feel the XMP fears do have some sentiment, and it’s really a matter of how the broad username interprets these issues (including the Thread users which would be family and friends).

      • atocci@kbin.social
        0·
        10 months ago

        I don’t think so. There are tons of ActivityPub implementations out there already that don’t even support all parts of the official spec (Lemmy can’t display attached images, for example). There are also implementations that have tacked on additional functionality beyond the official spec (again, Lemmy’s downvotes).

        It’s a very flexible protocol that allows developers to pick and choose what features they want to implement in their services.

        • yukijoou@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          0·
          10 months ago

          There are tons of ActivityPub implementations out there already

          but none are widely used by such a massive amount of people as threads, and especially people who don’t understand/care about spec compliance or even how federation works

          honestly, i think in the best scenario, threads will create their own activitypub “fork”, and most instances won’t want to follow it, forcing the people who were on non-threads instances to chose between going to threads to keep in touch with their threads mutuals, or staying on non-threads instances and no longer having a reliable way of keeping in touch with those people.

          worst case would be instances following what meta does and making them the spec dictators pretty much, the spec would become closed source and all other fedi implementations would lag behind in features compared to threads, and they can at any point change the spec and break other instances.

          i think the point of defederating with threads isn’t just the defederation, but is about sending a message that we don’t want to play their game, we want to keep doing our things our ways. if they want to interract with the fediverse, they’ll have to play by our rules, we don’t want to follow theirs

          • atocci@kbin.social
            0·
            10 months ago

            There is an assumption that any changes or additions Threads may make to their implementation of ActivityPub beyond the official spec will break compatibility with other instances. It won’t though, that’s the point I was trying to make above.

            Any additions they may want to make can absolutly be added on top of the existing official spec without breaking compatibility. Lemmy has downvotes but can still read comments and posts by Mastodon users. Mastodon users can post to Lemmy communities. You can see Pixelfed pictures on Kbin. Kbin posts can be read on Misskey. Misskey posts are visible on Mastodon.

            All of these services have features that don’t exist elsewhere, built outside of the existing spec, but the core content is all interoperable. Anything Threads may want to add can be done without destroying spec compatibility. Sure, they could still make a change that intentionally breaks compatibility, but why would they? Theres nothing in it for them. No one who’s here is going to leave just because the Threads users are gone. The Threads users are already absent and we’re all still here.

  • npz@lemm.ee
    0·
    10 months ago

    I don’t need any sort of isolationism pushed on me. I wouldn’t sign up for an email provider that blocks GMail because “we’re not corpo bootlickers” or whatever. If an instance wants to be its own little island with its own ideology, I’m cool with that, but it’s not for me - I’m looking for an instance that behaves more like an un-opinionated public utility.

    • PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de
      0·
      10 months ago

      I see your point but I think you might not know all the reasons for defederation. There is nothing wrong with wanting to interact with people on other platforms of course.

      However, Meta is a huge company and it is not in Meta’s interest to have an open fediverse with many diverse platforms. Platforms like instagram are notoriously predatory walled gardens. They grow until there is tons of people on them and they have a quasi-monopoly, then they crank up ads, force people to make an account and/or download an app to see content. Their content cannot be seen from elsewhere.

      If their services have been closed off in walled gardens until now, why would they suddenly shift and want to support ActivityPub? Mastodon is big but not big enough that people feel they are missing out by being on other platforms. I doubt they expect to attract significantly more users that way. They want to create a way to become part of the fediverse through their platform. Given the sheer amount of money Meta has, they will then make Threads the most bestest and easiest way to do microblogging on the fediverse. Find a mastodon instance? ugh what a hassle, just join Threads. Then they can start adding features that mastodon and firefish don’t have. People will switch to threads for these features, and voila, the age old strategy of embrace-extend-extinguish is done.

      Even if we assume that is not their motive, the fediverse is about open, democratic and collaborative social media. Those values are directly opposed by Meta’s entire business model (and their business itself which is generating shareholder profits). Now if some small company was part of the fediverse who cares, but Meta is a huge behemoth and IMO we’re better off building a world without them, rather than inviting them into it to compete against largely volunteer-built software. Let’s learn from the past.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
      0·
      10 months ago

      i think i’d 100% agree with you if: a) the fediverse wasn’t majority public facing b) meta’s past failures hadn’t impacted the material conditions and safety of real people

      i get your comparisons to gmail and phone providers, but to me those two differences are fundamental. gmail is private, your phone is private, but social media is public and can be used to stir up massive misinformation campaigns, harrassment, or calls to violence.

      on the same level, if any evidence that gmail or my phone provider had willingly participated in calls to violence which resulted in rape and murder, i also would want that institution to be excluded in order to guarantee the safety of my local instance’s members as well as to stop letting them profit from my existence on a federated platform.

      these are the key differences that i am taking into account when i call for not federating with meta on a majority scale. what are your thoughts on them?

      • npz@lemm.ee
        0·
        10 months ago

        I think these are fair points. and I can’t say I blame anyone for wanting Meta/FB out of their life entirely. I see value in both options - the option of having maximum connectivity to others, and the option of having only parties that are considered to be in good ethical standing. And I’m glad the fediverse can offer both options to everyone. For me personally, having communications cut between users based on who is hosting their instance is a last resort.

  • cum@lemmy.cafeEnglish
    0·
    10 months ago

    I’m apparently of the minority opinion that the user should be allowed to choose what instances to block

    • PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de
      0·
      10 months ago

      Meta is trying to extinguish (part of) the fediverse. If a user wants to participate in that, they are not welcome on my server in the first place.

    • atocci@kbin.social
      0·
      10 months ago

      Limited means the instance has done something not quite to the level of total defederation, but still limits the presence of Threads users. For example, making it so you can only see a Threads user if you actively search for and follow them, removing all Threads content from the global feed by default, preventing Threads users from following your users, etc.

      “Fedipact” means that the admin of that instance has signed on to the informal agreement of the same name between instances that pledged to defederate from Threads preemptively.

  • ANON@lemmy.ml
    0·
    10 months ago

    In my opinion we should defederate with the servers federating with threads

  • qevlarr@lemmy.world
    0·
    10 months ago

    Saying federation is the same as bootlicking is fucking bullshit. I want my insurance to defederate, but this is ridiculous exaggeration

  • sub_ubi@lemmy.ml
    0·
    10 months ago

    I don’t think there’s a good reason to avoid threads so long as it contains good and interesting users, and isn’t making huge demands from your users.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
      0·
      10 months ago

      the “huge demand from your users” will immediately be having to deal with meta’s attrocious history with moderation and user safety being repeated.

      • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        0·
        10 months ago

        honestly my threads feed is pretty good and i havent noticed too many issues with the things that plagued twitter. the trans community is pretty big on threads too which is nice.

      • sub_ubi@lemmy.ml
        0·
        10 months ago

        If you think everyone who uses facebok is garbage then the problem is you, you’re a misanthrope.

        • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
          0·
          10 months ago

          I probably am a misanthrope, but that doesn’t change the fact that anyone remaining on Facebook, Twitter, or even Reddit at this point, are bots, corporate shills, misinformation campaigns from enemy nations, or the idiots who have looked around at what’s going on with their platform and went “Yeah I’ll keep using this.”

          • gianni@lemmy.caEnglish
            0·
            10 months ago

            lol so my grandma is a garbage person because she hasn’t rage deleted her facebook account and setup shop on some federated instance where absolutely none of her family and remaining friends are while having to learn some completely new & often actively hostile interface. alright