11–20 of 69 posts
Besides, if I wanted to see posts from Facebook or Instagram users, I know where to find them.
Meta: Sure. Let's get 2B into the Fediverse with Instagram Threads.
Fediverse: No! Not that sort of adoption! Block Meta from the Fediverse now!
As expected and predicted in [0]: 'Instagram's success on ActivityPub is also Mastodon's nightmare and it tends to more centralization.'
Looks like Threads is going to be the biggest Mastodon-compatible network on the Fediverse and the other admins of larger instances who signed those NDAs won't block them anyway, with the smaller ones making themselves irrelevant if they do.
Meta once again is winning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because their motives are suspect?
there motives are...?
Blocking one of the biggest on-ramps will surely work wonders for adoption.
I'm not clear on what, exactly, Meta's AP offering might be (is it a separate user base from their other products, or an integration into them?) or how it will interact with other fediverse instances (FB/Insta users can follow users in the Fediverse without Meta enabling the reverse?).
If, on the other hand, there's full, two-way federation with Meta's services, that could be a huge boon to the fediverse, as it would share their "network effect" with a bunch of other players. Which, I guess, is possible.
But given Meta's track record of the lengths that they'll go to in pursuit of growth and profit, I'd be shocked if they actually did so.
As such, it doesn't surprise me that the fediverse is suspicious and skeptical of Meta's entrance.
Ah yes, let's punish and ostracize one of the largest silos for their attempts to be open to federation. Why, exactly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe adoption isn’t the goal. Just a thought…
of course it is.
Some federated bubbles will want to, but plenty of others won't. And they can continue on just fine.
The fediverse is about creating a more decentralized internet. Facebook is about centralizing as much of the internet on its servers and sucking up as much data as possible. These things simply aren't compatible. We've seen over, and over again what happens when you allow big tech companies into your open standards. Whether it was Google destroying the XMPP network, or Microsoft deliberately trying to cripple Open Office, we know how this will end. Facebook may play nice for a day or two, but one day some product manager will decide they have most of the users, so why play nice? They'll introduce a new (proprietary) feature to try and get their users to complain to their friends that messages aren't as cool when they're not on Facebook, suck up most of the users, then defederate. Or they'll just refuse to follow the standard properly because they know best (ala Google refusing to implement TLS for server to server connections with XMPP, making many smaller servers choose to defederate for their users safety).
Also, we've seen how bad their behavior can be in terms of moderation, being party to genocide, allowing nazis, etc. so why would we allow them to bring all that too our users? Blocking entire servers until they change their behavior, or permanently if they refuse to, has been an extremely effective moderation solution that has kept the fediverse safe. This only works if server sizes stay relatively small (where the crossover point is, I don't know, but I know facebook is way beyond it).
Ah yes, let's punish and ostracize one of the largest silos for their attempts to be open to federation. Why, exactly?
Because we learned from this before with their support for XMPP in Messenger (which no longer exists)? And plenty of other examples for for-profit corporations initially embracing open standards/protocols that might threaten their moat?
Ah yes, let's punish and ostracize one of the largest silos for their attempts to be open to federation. Why, exactly?
They are also well-known for tracking users across the entire internet and maintaining "shadow profiles" of people who don't even use their services. Anyone with privacy concerns[1] would not want them on the same network as themselves.
Their moderation is shit, they are happy to encourage arguments as long as they get ad views out of it. The Fediverse is generally supported by funds donated by site admins and users, who often would rather not have a place full of arguments. [2]
1: arguably anyone with privacy concerns might do well to avoid ActivityPub anyway but... 2: call it a "filter bubble" if you like, I'd rather be in one curated by myself and/or a friend than one curated by an amoral corporation