I think it’s pretty safe to say that the majority of us are here to avoid another corporate takeover of our preferred platforms. It would seem to me to be a tad irresponsible to allow Facebook into our space with open arms, allowing them to hoover up our data. I would love to keep using Lemmy.world, but will happily change instances if need be, and I feel many share that sentiment.
Why does it seem like everyone with this position is unaware that data here is already available publicly?
Please expand on how you believe blocking threads improves your privacy.
My objection with federating with Threads has nothing to do with privacy or data access, it has to do with keeping the ActivityPub protocol alive. Embrace, extend, extinguish is a much more legitimate threat to the fediverse than data scraping ever will be. No, the danger is that Meta will begin to contribute to the protocol. At first, contribution by a corporate actor would seem like a fantastic boon to an open standard that we wish to see grow, that’s the embrace phase. But it would not be long before Meta began adding features that are exclusive to a Threads user - they’ll extend the protocol to better accomplish their ends. In this way, they seek to bring more and more users into their platform in order to take advantage of these exclusive features while maintaining compatibility with the larger Fediverse. The end goal is to have enough users that when they decide to break that compatibility, they will make off with the majority of the users from the open community; that’s the extinguish part.
This is a well-established strategy that large tech companies have employed with open standards in the past (see XMPP). I strongly believe it is in the Fediverse’s long term interests to remain defederated from Threads, and any other large corporate player. Better to have fewer users and grow organically than to federate with Meta; we may see a short term boost to the fediverse, but the long term risks outweigh any benefit.
That being said, the nice thing about the fediverse is that I can just leave this instance for another if I disagree with the admin’s decisions.
I feel like Google is, or has, done this with AOSP
and with the usenet
I seen a lot of people post this and they always think that the counterpoint to that would be just don’t allow them to build exclusive features into the standard. If they add a feature, fine but it has to be for everyone.
If they start adding exclusive features then the developers can block them at a API level. The open source GNU license still gives the original developers creative control over the project and they can shut down anything that is not contributing to open source standards. Is there a need for individual instances to take action unless you think that the developers won’t block Meta, and they hate meta, so they will. But right now there’s nothing for them to do because Meta haven’t actually done anything yet.
You’re making the assumption that Meta will give a single shit about the GNU license at all. Does the fediverse have the means to fight one of the largest companies on the planet in court?
They don’t need to take them to court they can just block meta if they act badly there’s no need to sue.
Left this in another response to previous poster, but since you summarized the points, I wanted to link the article as well: https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
How does defederating mitigate EEE?
Facebook is a data harvesting company. Yes, it can scrape the data but why hand it to them on a silver platter? Let them scrape it, if they want it so bad. The issue is facebook has destroyed democracies , bought out competition and never had a good track record so why risk it. If we federate, it’ll be like smoking cigarettes even though we know smoking causes cancer.
Yeah Meta is a terrible company, I don’t actually believe anyone is arguing otherwise, but the point is that if they are defenderated all that will happen is that people who are on instances that defederate from them won’t be able to see or interact with their content. However the inverse will not be true, so the data will still be scrapable. So if your argument for defederating is that you want data privacy then you’re arguing about a moot point. You don’t get data privacy either way.
Now just to be clear here, I am not saying that defederating from them is a bad idea I’m just pointing out that the argument of privacy is moot. The only way to prevent your data being scraped by facebook would be to not use activitypub at all.
Read my comment again but this time slowly
If they’re really just after data at all costs, they could easily spin up an instance that has no apparent link to threads and federate secretly. I agree with other arguments about not federating with them but idk, all these data privacy arguments against federating with threads are so dumb. If they want it, they’ll get it because getting it is so absurdly easy.
Privacy is the less relevant point here. Keeping the fediverse alive is the central point. Just look at reddit to see how corporate greed can fuck up a social network. Or google groups killing the usenet by “federating” with it. If you want the expanded version: https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
I’m so tired of that article.
Neither the people advocating for dedederation nor that article ever explains how defederating is going to defeat EEE.
I take it you got tired before getting through the first paragraph even the first time reading? No one is talking about “defeat EEE” - it’s about protecting yourself against attempts to use the EEE strategy. And the article explains exactly how defederating is relevant in that regard.
I read the whole thing the first time it was presented to me.
Yeah and it spouts vague platitudes while avoiding specifics. Maybe it’s the sysadmin in me but that isn’t worth shit.
How does defederating “protect against attempts to use the EEE strategy”?
Maybe I could see a valid point if you could instantly have all instances defederate now and forever but you can’t.
Since you refuse to acknowledge that the explanation is right there in the text, I’ll have to assume you have ill intent.
That’s what I thought.
Let the people who come after, read this thread and see the lack of specifics, again.
Honestly I dont think they are data scraping the entire internet. There is no evidence to believe they are.
I dont want to manually feed my data to them on a silver platter.
They also don’t get access to all the data that I think is most invasive (federated or not). I expect my posts, comments, votes, and follows on a public forum to be public. I don’t expect which posts I open, which comments I read, and how long I view each one for (a much larger and more invasive pool of data) to be public, and that’s what I don’t want Meta to get. By not using threads, they don’t get that. By using threads (or any Meta product) they do get that, and they probably use it to shovel more ads in your face.
While I am a little cautious of the possibility of EEE, I feel like the majority of fediverse users are anti-corporation and relatively technically informed, and would anticipate any attempts to extinguish it would be poorly received and ineffective. (Edit: although I do think this argument is reasonable and haven’t really decided whether I think federating with threads is a good idea)
Either way, federating with threads won’t give them any non-public information, which is substantially better than if you used their products directly. The other information is there for anyone to grab, so it’s kind of weird to complain about them reading it. If you put up a sign in your yard, you wouldn’t complain about people who walk by reading it.
If they want mastodon or lemmy data, they already have access. Full stop.
Downvoting facts you don’t like doesn’t change reality, unfortunately.
Because they don’t know what’s going on and are just trying to fit in.
Those people aren’t great at thinking things through. They’re “idea people”.