Why have we not done a federated Facebook replacement yet?
Why have we not done a federated Facebook replacement yet?
I'm not the most on point as far as keeping up with the internet so possibly it is actually happening, but I have not yet identified a direct challenge to Facebook from the fediverse that has been settled on by those already here.
I was on Mastodon for a while but realized I hate Twitter-style interactions, as much as I enjoyed posting about all the stuff I'm into - as the Twitter people kept coming like waves of Saxons with funny hair on Britain's fair shore, I got into some supremely silly arguments and then got out. I didn't bother to wait for them to burn my village, they're welcome to it.
I'm now giving Lemmy a go, because as far as participation in platforms, I lasted longest at Reddit, though I was gone long before the recent exodus. Hopefully my dogs, cats, plants and microcontroller projects will get some love from The Internet's Good Strangers here.
But I was, in the early days, quite an avid FB user and considered it unleaveable until 2016, at which point I realized it was not just leavable but likely to get us all killed. I still have a (good parts of) Facebook-shaped hole in my online life, which is where all my real friends and relatives used to hang out for my daily perusal, and where I could send out my various snarks and know I was amusing at least one or two people who genuinely found my antics delightful. I'm not a troll but I'm definitely a Grouch, and even Oscar needed a hug every now and then.
So given that most of us are here because we recognized the cycle of enshittification at some point and decided to make a different choice, and given that we've so quickly embraced replacements for every other big silo, and given again that most of us were probably once on FB and used it to be connected to our real people... why have we collectively shied away from even offering a viable Facebook alternative?
Whenever I ask my more "woke" friends why they're still there, it nearly always seems to be that their old relatives are all there. I can see that that would be a great challenge, to move them off of that pablum-crack. Maybe the Secret Council Of Woke Fediverse Elders is using all these lesser platforms as gamergate-like test runs to iron out the kinks in federation. Perhaps even the seeming willingness of Mastodon admins to let Meta poke their tentacles in the door is entirely a feint - perhaps Mastodon was never intended to be kept in the first place, but rather, is just a honey pot to gather important battlefield notes for the coming attack!
maybe?
You're viewing a single thread.
Why have we not done a federated Facebook replacement yet?
Because Facebook is highly useful as a container for people you wouldn't want to interact with.
Lol true, in nearly every case. But some of them are family or dear friends. :>
The risk outweighs the potential gains!
What would the risks be?
Like, context, last month when I was on Mastodon and the great argument about whether to federate with Meta happened, I was very much on the "fuck no not ever" team. In terms of opening the federated door to them, I can think of many ways that ends horribly for us but not so many where it actually hurts them. So it's not that I discount the danger they represent to anyone who interfaces any part of themselves with their products.
But a Federation that directly competes with the constructive parts of Facebook's social infrastructure (mainly, connections to family/friends and groups for local communities/events), and tries to be as easy to use, with no interfacing directly with facebook, I don't see the risk, other than, they will obviously send their hooligans, but I don't see what they can do if we just say no.
I'm still gonna be watching the Threads plot unfold, they forced a good opening but apparently it's petered off, and they no longer have infinite capital to throw around for Ubering.
What would the risks be?
What's your experience with userbase site-to-site migration?
None whatsoever, other than, I actually was enjoying Mastodon for about two weeks and then two Twitter exodi brought a flood what I can only describe as twitthink, so I definitely know how a userbase can fundamentally alter the character of a community in a relative heartbeat.
I'm sure there's all sorts of well-thought-out technical reasons why it can't work that I haven't thought of, but in all honesty I don't find such ministrations very compelling. Fundamentally, I do still believe in the ability of groups of well-informed and competent people to pull things off.
But again, aside from the stuff I already thought about like server loads, traffic management, all the problems of federation that we're already aware of, what I'm specifically wondering if I'm missing, is, are there risks specific to going up against FB that are different risks from what we're already doing to the other sites?
None whatsoever,
I see.
I see.
Equally cryptic rejoinder which does not avoid the question.
Yeah... I have Viber for that. Anyone wanna contact me, they can do it via Viber. They know I don't do FB/Twitter/IG.
I just use email and, you know, telephones. They see about as much of me as they ever did in real life, and facebook was never a representation of my real life to begin with. But the place is hurting them, and they think they can't leave. Just like when a friend is in an abusive relationship, we can't make them leave, but we can prepare a place for them to land when they do, and these people are all gonna need some doomscrolling methadone if they ever jump off that slot machine.
The exact reason I decided to install Viber was fast communication with everyone else (everyone uses it around here) and to caiter to the needs of my friends and relatives.
You can't really do anything for them. It's like a drug, if they refuse to admit they're addicts, then there is nothing you can do.
We are all addicted to something, no doubt there, whether it be cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, gambling, social networks, doesn't matter. The real test is, what will you do once that thing that you're addicted to suddenly is no more. I have done this test on myself a few times. The first is the hardest. You really have no idea what to do, even though you have like a bunch of things shelved in your head that need to be done, but you just can't stop thiking about the thing that you're deprying yourself of. The second time it's easier, the third, even easier. I'm at a point right now that I know I can quit Lemmy or the net entirely for an unlimited period of time, if I wanted to. It's just training of the mind, nothing more.
I suggest you prepare them mentally for one of the hardest things they'll have to endure (if none of them have ever given up drugs, gambling, alcohol, cigrettes, those addictions are far worse). First leave them without FB for a week or two, let them stress it out. Afterwards, Lemmy will feel like heaven to them, lol 😂. Cuz let's face it, you can't doomscroll here, there still isn't that much content, but you can scroll for about an hour or two, no problem there.
It's interesting too, back in the 90s, there was a steady stream of new stuff coming online always, but you did tend to run out of new stuff within a set period of time and need to go play Doom or something. I remember when the first Reddit phone app came out and there was this idea that you could just scroll forever, as a feature, and... hmm.
I look around and I see a lot of things being treated as not just necessary, but articles of faith, when discussing what social media needs to look like. Zero effort is one, and global reach is another. The former was never intended to be a feature of the internet, the latter is there as the default - a silo can only limit your reach, in the final analysis, but it can make you louder within its bubble I suppose, and it seems that a lot of us find that very important. I'm happy just to be discussing this with another presumably human and obviously rational brain, me. If I post my dog, I just need one "zomg so cute" and I'm satisfied.
Things are different now because everyone is a content creator now... everyone has something interesting, funny, informative, shitty they just have to share. Social media made sharing those things real easy. So, basically, now, there's an endless supply of stuff you can scroll through. Everyone is online now, that wasn't the case back in the 90s.
Things are what they currently are (easily accessible to everyone, even 90 year old granma that has no understanding of what the internet is, but her only living friend has an account on FB, so she told her to hop on board) bacause of the money insentive. Everything has a price tag nowadays. A perfect example, cryptocurrency. It isn't worth anything, but someone decided to put a price tag on it and now, it's worth a lot. And things can't pan out any differently in a capitalist economic system where everything has to have a price tag. People sometimes think "you know, if we did this or that differently, maybe things wouldn't be so bad". At this moment in time, maybe, but you're just postponing the inevitable. Things will be like this, sooner or later. A global shift in econmic orders has to happen in order for companies to lose insentive in gathering data (they make signups and other things easy so more people will get hooked and be online as long as possible) and just stop developing the platforms... which in turn will drop the user base and eventually, the plaform will die. If you can't sell the gathered data or use it to make money, it's worthless.