How do we feel about federating with Threads?
How do we feel about federating with Threads?
Threads seems to be beginning to test ActivityPub federation, and since Kbin can be used for microblogging, this affects kbin.social. What are your thoughts on federating or defederating with them?
I would prefer not to federated with threads and will block if kbin federated. If I wanted Facebook content I would use Facebook.
How would you block threads? There are still many things about kbin that confuse me, so asking in earnest.
Kbin has settings to block entire instances. Unless threads is implemented as a ton of different instances it should be easy to just block threads.meta or whatever their instance is called.
I have a few instances like lemmy.ml on my block list already.
I'm strongly against it because of Embrace Extend Extinguish.
I'd encourage everyone to read How To Kill A Decentralized Network like the Fediverse if you haven't already.
I think Meta's history reveals it to be a bad actor and I don't think their intentions here are above board.
Microsoft put that theory in practice with the release of Windows 2000 which offered support for the Kerberos security protocol. But that protocol was extended. The specifications of those extensions could be freely downloaded but required to accept a license which forbid you to implement those extensions. As soon as you clicked "OK", you could not work on any open source version of Kerberos. The goal was explicitly to kill any competing networking project such as Samba.
This is a great article describing exactly how Meta can control the fediverse and destroy smaller instances with anti-competitve practices.
My main concern is that this is just
FacebookMeta utilizing the “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” strategy that Microsoft used against Netscape in the 90s.I feel like our small communities here - which are just getting started - are going to be flooded by Threads users who don’t even know what federation is and then all the content, power & control will realistically be in Meta’s hands.
My gut says that is probably Meta’s goal, but what do I know? I’m just some internet person.
Threads, despite its name, is not a threaded discussion forum like the Threadiverse. It's more like Mastodon, a microblogging protocol. I don't think we'll be seeing Threads users flooding here because the format of these communities isn't really compatible with that.
How would power be handed to Meta just because Threads has more users? The communities are under the control of the instances where they were created, and Threads users couldn't create larger communities to replace them either since it's only a microblogging platform.
The concept is that overtime, communities and connections will organically grow. If Threads has a disproportionally large ubserbase, then overtime they will create a similarly larger number of communities. This then would give them a lot more influence over the fediverse and anyone federated with them.
For smaller instances that become accustomed to seeing those communities and content, the danger is that Meta can just “pull the plug,” defederate, and extinguish the competition, or at the very least hurt their competitor's users experiences when interacting with content from Threads. The reason they might do this is purely because it fits into their business model which is selling user data to advertisers; it is in Meta’s interest to have as much data on their users as possible, and to have those users be based on Meta’s platform.
As I said in another comment, I could be totally wrong and this could benefit the fediverse. I just think the opposite is more likely because I do not trust Meta. I think they will play nice in the beginning, but then start to flex their muscles once they feel they’ve got enough influence.
Also, there is nothing stopping them from expanding Thread’s capabilities to include the threadiverse. Kbin has already demonstrated both are possible in one app.
I think you're right though.
Right!?
Decentralized networks are a threat to Meta’s entire business model which runs on advertisements. That doesn’t work very well when your users can just jump to another instance without ads.
Meta wants to nip the fediverse in the bud now before it’s too late for them to get a foothold. I think they’re gonna do it by (trying) to port their massive userbase to Threads, make other instances dependent on their content and users, and then pull the plug so they can go back to selling everyone’s information to advertisers.
Edit:
https://i.imgur.com/4U0g4Bk.png
I saw this image floating around a few days ago that I think helps illustrate that even if a fraction of Meta's userbase migrates to Threads it will be enough to dominate the fediverse. Instagram has two billion users, and the entire fediverse only has around 1.5 million.
Raise your hand if you think it would be okay for Meta to put your kBin/Lemmy content along side THEIR ads for revenue.
I mean fuck, how many of us left Reddit for their bullshit? Inviting Meta into the mix is an even worse proposition.
why do people support federation with big company that has bad track record
I would be... Anything I put on here, I know kbin.social will be sending out to thousands of other instances, and what those instances do with my content and how it's displayed is completely out of my control. That's just the nature of ActivityPub, and by posting here I think I have to be okay with that. There are already ActivityPub services that run ads, so it's not unique to Threads either.
I mean, any Fediverse instance can already do this. Some already do. Nobody seems to have a problem with their content MissKey.io's ads right now.
I don't trust meta to not intentionally kill us off, drown us out, or start trying to imposing their rules.
Then you don't understand how ActivityPub works.
It should work on paper, but server hopping going to burn a lot of people out.
Fuck that. Keep the corporate enshittification of fediverse as far off as possible.
No. Fuck Facebook, and fuck Zuck. There isn't a world in which they would federate and respect our privacy.
See how they build internal user profiles for users not on Facebook through tags and other metadata scraping techniques. If people you know talk about you on Facebook, there's a shadow profile about you out there, waiting to connect with you in real time. I have no reason to think they wouldn't do the same kind of shit here.
you cant post publicly over time and expect anonymity. no one can.
you are easily discernible by a number of features if someone really wanted to track you down, so this idea that using a public forum has an expectation of privacy is confusing me.
whoami
I'm baffled by the trend in recent years of everyone insisting that they need to be in control of every byte of data that they deliberately publish onto the open medium of the Internet.
I mean, I'm not really baffled. I understand that people see that their data might be worth pennies and they want those pennies to be their pennies, darnit. I mean I'm dismayed by it.
If Meta's going to be supporting ActivityPub, then yay, IMO. If you don't want Meta's servers to see your data then stop posting it on an open protocol whose purpose is to show it to Meta's servers.
Look, I understand your opinion and I respect it, but I simply do not trust Meta. They are a business, and they are always going to do what is best for their business. Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with that - all businesses are in the business of staying in business - but I think their track record makes them an untrustworthy actor in regards to the fediverse; they're a big tech company joining a small (and I would argue obscure) ensemble of social networks.
Of course, I could be totally wrong and this could be a total boon for Activity Pub, kbin, mastodon, and the wider fediverse. I just think that the opposite is more likely.
And if Meta tries to pull some sort of destructive shenanigans, sure, then defederate from them. Not because they're Meta, but because they're pulling destructive shenanigans. There's already plenty of instances that get defederated for that sort of thing.
That's not what I'm annoyed about here, though. I'm annoyed by all the people who have come to the Fediverse claiming that it's because it's open and free and all that, and then when some company that they have a particular personal dislike for comes along and wants to participate in the protocol exactly as intended they go "but not like that!"
If some random instance like lemmy.ca (name picked randomly) was to find itself in financial difficulty keeping the lights on and was to strike some kind of deal with an advertiser to put banner ads on their site, would there be a similar enormous hue and cry about it? Maybe users on lemmy.ca who have to actually deal with the advertising might raise a ruckus, but over here on kbin.social it wouldn't affect me in the slightest.
Why in hell would a massive social media company give two flying shits about a decentralized, comparatively tiny not-quite-one-platform?
To eat it. To completely destroy it and thus gain greater power and control over even more.
Like, the fediverse isn't a threat at all to fb/meta, but people, chatting on internet, without total top down direct oversight on what comes up in your feed?
Well how would they make their money? Or push their propaganda?
of havings problem unrelated to data
- They should pay the hosting costs of any server they pull data from
- not run ads against the content that comes from other instances
- Any changes they want in activity pub should be in the form of an MR on activitypub itself, and they must respect the protocol maintainers of the project if their MR is rejected. If they implement AP features outside of spec, they should be summarily defederated. We do not need another Jabber/XMPP vs Google situation
- Any instance is free to federate/defederate with threads
That's not really how ActivityPub works though, there's no pulling. They wouldn't be accessing kbin and downloading it's data, it's a push system. We would be pushing copies of our data out to Threads like we do now with all the other ActivityPub services. Threads would then distribute that data to it's users with no extra work on kbin's part. It would just be one more instance in addition to the thousands of instances already out there.
People bring up the XMPP Google situation a lot also, but I think it's a bad analogy for this. Google's adoption of XMPP brought people into the protocol and Google abandoning it took those same people away. Those who were using it before Google could still use it after Google. Anybody who left XMPP to follow Google did it because XMPP failed to adapt to the features people wanted. Thats why we have Matrix now instead.
Wow, had not even thought of that.
RIP to any server that federates with them and has to pay for the bandwidth they're going to need to service Meta's users.
I already preemptivelly defederated from them a long time ago.
Hey lemmy user here
Does kbin have user level defederation or something
I am not super familiar with it, but my understanding is that Kbin lets users block something by domain.
So, my understanding is that yes individual users could theoretically block Threads content.
If I am wrong, somebody please correct me!
I don't think so, only if you spin up your own instance. I myself have my own instance of Mastodon where I defederated Threads.
We have user level domain blocking, so if you block an instance it's a bit like defederation.
Afaik you can still sometimes see their users on other instances but you don't see any of the blocked instance's own content anywhere.
No to preemptive defederation. They get defederated if they prove to be too problematic, same as any other instance.
Lol we know they're problematic already tho.
@ThatOneKirbyMain2568 from someone on Mastodon, I don't see an issue with it.
The only data they get is public facing data (public profile info and post contents). The only place your IP or email address is stored, is on the server you're logged into or the site you're on.
Though others might have some other reservations, that was my biggest concern.
no ._.
fediverse will lose identity
We feel poorly about it.
I think it's a possible change, It will bring a lot of newer people that rather haven't researched or want to move away from 'main stream' platforms to be able to come to the Fediverse and could be really possible for the amount of people being able to interact in general across both platforms.
It would also allow me to move away from Threads and stick to one account for most of the Fediverse based Social Media usage, and I really hope other Social Media's follow in METAs steps.
I honestly want it. I want to follow people who have Threads accounts without needing a Threads account myself. I want more people in the fediverse and I don't care what platform they're using to access it because I'll be on kbin.
If Meta one day decides to leave ActivityPub, that's fine with me because I'll still be here on kbin with all the same people who are here now who also would never use Threads.
I'll probably defed Threads itself, but there are a few accounts I want to follow.
I really don't see the issue. So more users is bad? I thought our issue is the lack of users currently.
I've seen people complain about ads and data harvesting here. But instances can already do that. Meta joining would change nothing about that. Actually, being a proper legal company, it might be easier to sue them over misusing your data than random instances.
"Embrace. Extend. Extinguish"? Let's stop between the last two steps then, not before the first one.
Kbin would be crippled by the amount of Threads content? I thought federation only happened if one kbin.social user is following a user on Threads? Should be as easily manageable then as Mastodon is currently. Or am I misunderstanding how this works?
To me, big sites federating looks like a clear advantage. I don't really get the big problem.
My understanding of the EEE doctrine is that the large company/userbase pervades, overshadows, and quite literally takes over, so the fediverse wouldn't really get a say in the matter.
So block them, block them hard, block them now and forever
online communties tend to get worse when popular enough
The Fediverse is an experiment and should/needs to be robust enough to cope with large commercial instances. I’m happy to see how this goes before blocking if it goes badly
They'll boil the frog slowly enough. Threads is huge compared to the fediverse, and will likely do piecemeal federation. Like sending account activity out but not sharing any fediverse voices, getting everyone here following and desensitized
They may. We’ll see. But us running around with our hair on fire before we see what actually happens feels a bit off
Meta is horrible. Betcha it gets slapped with massive defedding in no time flat.
Whelp, Pixelfed's already out 😶
Did we not learn anything from Google and XMPP?
Refusing to federate with Threads would achieve exactly that outcome. Most people on Threads wouldn't know the Fediverse existed any more than most people on Google knew XMPP existed.
The Fediverse is struggling to get a large enough userbase to be as useful as the mega-services it replaces. Threads can gift that userbase and make people more aware that the Fediverse exists.
FWIW this is exactly why Threads didn't join the Fediverse until they'd overcome the legal obstacles to operating in the EU. If they'd federated first they risked losing all their potential EU users to the Fediverse.
The quickest way to lose this game is not to play it and the Google/XMPP example iillustrates why.
Alright, so the plan is to federate with Threads but to not implement any of their extensions?
@ThatOneKirbyMain2568
defederate!I'm not super familiar with the right terminology, but in short I think users should be able to follow whoever they want, but restrictions on how it is interacted with is fair game. I think following and replying to threads accounts is sort of a must, even if boosting and other functions are disabled. Also on favor of preventing non-replies from being sent to threads.
The real issue issue is interop with Threads means surveillance of users. Limiting the info going from here to there is essential. However a read-only mode that lets us get some value out of it is fine
