There has been significant discussion in recent weeks regarding Meta/Threads. We would like to express our disappointment with the negative and threatening tone of some of these discussions. We kindly ask everyone to engage in civil discourse and remember that not everyone will share the same opinions, which is perfectly acceptable.
When considering whether or not to defederate from Threads, we’re looking for a decision based on facts that prioritize your safety. We strive to remain neutral to make an informed choice.
First, there seem to be some misconceptions about how the Fediverse operates based on several posts. We’ve compiled some resource links to help explain the details and address any misunderstandings.
Fed Tips , Fediverse , ActivityPub
Initial Thoughts:
It seems unlikely that Meta will federate with Lemmy. When/if Meta adopts ActivityPub, it will likely affect Mastodon only rather than Lemmy, given Meta’s focus on being a Twitter alternative at the moment.
Please note that we have a few months before Threads will even federate with Mastodon, so we have some time to make the right decision.
Factors to Consider:
Factors to consider if Meta federates with Lemmy:
Privacy - While it’s true that Meta’s privacy settings for the app are excessive, it’s important to note that these settings only apply to users of the official Threads app and do not impact Lemmy users. It’s worth mentioning that Lemmy does not collect any personal data, and Meta has no means of accessing such data from this platform. In addition, when it comes to scraping data from your post/comments, Meta doesn’t need ActivityPub to do that. Anyone can read your profile and public posts as it is today.
Moderation - If a server hosts a substantial amount of harmful content without performing efficient and comprehensive moderation, it will create an excessive workload for our moderators. Currently, Meta is utilizing its existing Instagram moderation tools. Considering there were 95 million posts on the first day, this becomes worrisome, as it could potentially overwhelm us and serve as a sufficient reason for defederation.
Ads - It’s possible if Meta presents them as posts.
Promoting Posts - It’s possible with millions of users upvoting a post for it to trend.
Embrace, extend, and extinguish (EEE) - We don’t think they can. If anyone can explain how they technically would, please let us know. Even if Meta forks Lemmy and gets rid of the original software, Lemmy will survive.
Instance Blocking - Unlike Mastodon, Lemmy does not provide a feature for individual users to block an instance (yet). This creates a dilemma where we must either defederate, disappointing those who desire interaction with Threads, or choose not to defederate, which will let down those who prefer no interaction with Threads.
Blocking Outgoing Federation - There is currently no tool available to block outgoing federation from lemmy.world to other instances. We can only block incoming federation. This means that if we choose to defederate with our current capabilities, Threads will still receive copies of lemmy.world posts. However, only users on Threads will be able to interact with them, while we would not be able to see their interactions. This situation is similar to the one with Beehaw at the moment. Consequently, it leads to significant fragmentation of content, which has real and serious implications.
Conclusion:
From the points discussed above, the possible lack of moderation alone justifies considering defederation from Threads. However, it remains to be seen how Meta will handle moderation on such a large scale. Additionally, the inability of individuals to block an instance means we have to do what is best for the community.
If you have any added points or remarks on the above, please send them to @[email protected].
Defederating from Threads in a preemptive fashion is nothing more than reactionary nonsense based on bad history. It literally makes no sense. Who the fuck cares what Meta does? All of the “consequences” I’ve read so far come across like bad fanfic at best. The analogies to Microsoft are false equivalencies.
I’ll make it simple: I’ll leave if lemmy.world defederates things preemptively. People need to understand that this idea has been around forever and has worked forever. Looking a gift horse like Threads choosing to join up (if it actually does federate - I highly doubt it) in the mouth is absolutely insane.
Why are the doomers not talking about how best to steal users from Threads instead of just assuming this entire thing collapses the second a company with capital joins? How can this be considered a sustainable (again, looong-ago proven) system if a single company can pop in and ruin it?
Because Fediverse is too small at the moment. That’s why Facebook needs to destroy it now. Before it becomes too big.
It’s too small for them to want to destroy it.
It’s big enough that they can’t ignore it apparently.
In all seriousness, I want you to explain how Facebook destroys federation.
Because with all due respect, this is like saying Hotmail could kill email. It is incoherent. Most of the commentary surrounding this conflates growth with existence.
Facebook will be the biggest instance. Its users will see whatever its algorithm designed to manipulate them will show them and that’s mostly the only content they will interact with. That’s also what the Fediverse users will see, since those will be the most upvoted posts.
Many people will enjoy the fact that they can talk to Facebook users and follow their favorite celebrities that are on there. The Fediverse content creators will enjoy the bigger reach it gives them, as long as they adhere to the constantly changing behavior of Facebook’s algorithm.
Maybe this total control over the Fediverse will be enough for Facebook. Or maybe they will decide one day to break compatibility with the ActivityPub protocol. Some other Fediverse instances will feel pressured to implement the same changes to the protocol, in order to keep people connected. Some of them will not want to do this though, which will create a split in the community. Eventually the instances that remained with Facebook will struggle to keep up with the changes and will become less and less reliable, until they become completely useless and disappear. The Fediverse users will have to create a Facebook account to follow their favorite celebrities. Fediverse content creators will be forced to do that as well in order to stay relevant. Most of those people will not want to use two platforms at once (and they are already committed to using Facebook) and will stop using the Fediverse, which will become known as a buggy and unreliable platform with a much smaller userbase that it started with.
I’ve heard that most of email is controlled by like 3 providers and it’s very difficult to setup your own server. So that’s also not a good situation.
There is no control over federation. You’re working with a false premise. Once again: who owns email?
Not a lick of this is based in reality. You’re guessing based on preconceived biases and an overactive imagination. But we literally don’t have to guess! We’ve been, as I’ve said, doing this for decades now. Nothing you just said applies to any other “federated” service system we’ve implemented on the internet to date.
With all due respect, if this is your current level of knowledge about a topic, perhaps refrain from opining about it.
Of course there is. Every decentralized network can be controlled by making it more centralized.
Nobody owns email just like nobody owns the bitcoin blockchain. That doesn’t mean that it’s not possible to take control over the blockchain. Centralization is a real threat that is constantly discussed by the crypto community, email server owners and many other communities. Ignoring it would be foolish. Especially when a single party owns more than 90% of the network, which is what will happen when Facebook joins the Fediverse with their hundreds of millions of users.
Just because you can’t imagine how something could happen, doesn’t mean that it can’t happen. I gave you one example scenario just like you asked. It is based on “embrace, extend, and extinguish” strategy.
Setting up a reliable email server is difficult, so not many people decide to do it. This is common knowledge.
You’re conflating two things I already mentioned in the previous post.
Microsoft is a false equivalency. EEE doesn’t work in federated systems. Email is the example I’ve given to you about 3 times, and you’ve ignored it. I wonder why?
You’re changing it from “setting up an email server is difficult” to “setting up a reliable email server is difficult”? Why make the change? Also, it’s still wrong. Email is trivial to set up. I seriously wish you would stop arguing about things you genuinely do not understand.
When someone controls 90% of the network, they controls the rules. This is obvious and I don’t get why it’s so hard for you to understand.
Except this exact strategy was already used against XMPP by Google. It’s a real scenario that could happen. It doesn’t matter how many times you mention email.
Because an unreliable email server isn’t very useful?
It’s not easy to setup a reliable email server. If it’s easy for you, then it’s because you are good at it.
At this point you’ve already beared your ass and it’s as clear as day you don’t understand the topics you’re discussing. I see no reason to continue giving you my time when you’re just going to change your argument over and over again. See ya, nerd.
No kidding. The whole point of the fediverse is that anyone is free to federate or defederate as they please. If you want defederation then just join an instance that allows for that, instead of kicking up a fuss over other instances exercising their right to federate.