Here’s my prediction, but I’d like others to contribute their predictions as well. I think it’s important that we make ourselves aware of signs before they start showing, and that we have a record to point to if things play out exactly as we predict.
- Threads launches, federates with the 'verse, everything works well and actually seems hunky-dory. Even companies/restaurants/officials that use a Facebook page might be accessible via federation!
- Threads starts allowing their users to embed and interact with content from Facebook, Instagram, & possibly WhatsApp using Threads. Federated communities will be able to embed some of that content as well. Also, InstaWhatsBook users will be able to link to Threads posts as well.
- Sooner or later, embedded content from the Meta’s 'verse will encourage and eventually require you to be signed into Meta. This will be for the “security” and “privacy” of Meta users. But don’t worry, you’ll simply be able to link your federated instance’s account to a Meta account real easy, and even keep your credentials & karma status synced as well!
- Eventually posts from Threads users will be restricted even further and you’ll have to visit their site in order to “securely” view that content. Don’t worry though, you synced your account before so it’s not really an issue to just hop over.
- People get tired of having to hop over to Threads for most posts, and since their credentials are synced to both, it doesn’t really hurt to just stay on Threads and view federated posts from there.
- Meta changes the nature of their karma system so not everything syncs anymore. Of course you get the most benefit if you’re posting on Threads.
- Meta finally decides that federating “just isn’t in their best interest” and shuts down federation, leaving a husk of the Fediverse behind.
leaving a husk of the fediverse behind
Even if everything you describe happens, that “husk” will be what we have today, probably even bigger. I’m okay with that.
I have faith in this as well.
It would’ve been fine except Meta had 200 engineers “helping” to build ActivityPub and it’s gotten pretty convoluted and hard to develop for now.
It’s no problem for Meta and their hundreds of engineers but quite a bit more difficult for Joe Average Developer to contribute or even understand what’s going on with it. The barrier to entry has gotten too high. All you can do now is use Threads or find a new place to go.
I do too.
Side note: your avatar is awesome.Thanks! My wife made it for me.
Wives kick ass.
I’m in the camp of welcoming meta to the fediverse, BUT - not bending over backwards.
If they start making changes that affect federation for them, then that is their problem. Treat meta as a platform, no different to mastodon.
Remember that the fediverse consists of more than just Mastodon.
If meta makes a change and suddenly pixelfed can’t federate properly with meta anymore, it’ll be a shame, but it does not mean that pixelfed should make changes and add workarounds so that it is able to speak to meta again.Meta might think they have the power to do this, but they only have that power if we behave like they do.
If instead we take an attitude of, it’s fine for you to be here, while you are being a good citizen, but if you start making demands - you are on your own.In an ideal world that would be great practice. But when Meta is sitting on 95% of the activity pubs usage, it’s just not going to be feasible to tell them “your problem”. Because that’s what users are going to be pushing for. Perhaps not you and me, and perhaps not many of those that have used services if the protocol for a while.
But the millions and millions who will be coming? They don’t care about Meta taking over. They’ll be mad when Mastodon stops syncing, or pixelfed. Who at that point have grown so much that there’ll be a huge public outcry if they don’t bend over backwards.
If they start making changes that affect federation for them, then that is their problem.
No, that’s not their problem, that’s ours too. I don’t think that you know the whole story. They are not gonna make changes just on their side, they are making some admins of the fediverse sign an NDA too:
https://433.world/@Yuvalne/110566872225488614
Explain the NDA please.
Treat meta as a platform, no different to mastodon.
Mastodon doesn’t make people sign NDA afaik. Neither does lemmy or kbin.
If meta makes a change and suddenly pixelfed can’t federate properly with meta anymore, it’ll be a shame, but it does not mean that pixelfed should make changes and add workarounds so that it is able to speak to meta again.
Not if pixelfed has signed an NDA with Meta.
Meta might think they have the power to do this, but they only have that power if we behave like they do.
That’s probably the point of the NDA Meta is making people sign.
I was on board with your position before, until I read this NDA stuff. If the admins are making changes then the fediverse is dead.
NDAs are pretty standard practice in corporate environments, and they don’t automatically mean there’s something nefarious going on.
I don’t see why we should accept the NDA practice in the fediverse. We’ve been naive in the past, now I would avise way more caution.
To me signing an NDA or refusing to sign the fedipact would be a red alert for the platform.
Any corporation is going to make non employees sign an NDA before showing them internal information. This is not a red flag in and of itself.
I guess we will never know since everything is under NDA, right? So this is the end of the sharing of information. I see no good reason to trust an admin who signed an NDA with Meta in this context. If average Joe can run an instance in a container then I’m sure that Meta can do it too.
Reminder about Zuck:
“They trust me — dumb fucks,” says Zuckerberg in one of the instant messages, first published by former Valleywag Nicholas Carlson at Silicon Alley Insider, and now confirmed by Zuckerberg himself in Jose Antonio Vargas’s New Yorker piece. Zuckerberg now tells Vargas, “I think I’ve grown and learned a lot” since those instant messages.
I keep getting the feeling you’ve never actually been under an NDA.
What are you imagining the worst-case scenario is for what could be discussed? You clearly have globbed on to this idea and NDAs mean something nefarious is going on, and since you apparently can’t be reasoned out of that particular conspiracy theory, help me understand what your concern is.
I keep getting the feeling you’ve never actually been under an NDA.
I have.
What are you imagining the worst-case scenario is for what could be discussed?
I don’t want to have to imagine, that’s the point of the fediverse, everything is in the open, leveled playing field for everyone. If Meta cannot work with this principle then fine, but don’t push it on us.
You clearly have globbed on to this idea and NDAs mean something nefarious is going on, and since you apparently can’t be reasoned out of that particular conspiracy theory, help me understand what your concern is.
I’m such a horrible person.
Anyway we know better where everyone stands. I’m for signing the fedipact, you’re not.
What do you think the NDA says that would be a huge issue? As mentioned before, NDAs are extremely common in business environments and don’t mean much other than you can’t leak proprietary information. An NDA can’t compel someone to do anything and absolutely can’t silence people. If any of the admins that were a part of the meeting signed the NDA and had an issue with what was discussed, they can definitely bring up that it was problematic as long as they don’t give too specific of details. I personally don’t trust Meta at all, but the NDA is not one of the reasons.
It’s also important to note that right now, ActivityPub is fairly small and most of the users use it because of issues with the alternatives. If Meta tried to do anything, it’s likely the same people and more would stay here instead of moving to Threads. Also this may be naive, but I strongly believe that if more major players adopt ActivityPub, it would incentivize everyone to continue supporting it. This will not happen if we take such a hostile approach to corporations joining the fediverse.
AN (or even) multiple admins signing NDA’s does not mean anything for the functioning of the Fediverse though, admins are running software, many of them do not have the knowledge to go in and start making significant code changes to the protocol. That’s what Codeberg is for https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep THAT is where changes to the protocol happen.
Long ago, a storm was heading toward the city of Quin’lat. The people sought protection within the walls, all except one man who remained outside. I went to him and asked what he was doing. “I am not afraid,” he said. “I will not hide my face behind stone and mortar. I will stand before the wind and make it respect me.” I honored his choice and went inside. The next day, the storm came, and the man was killed. The wind does not respect a fool. Do not stand before the wind.
We’re not stuck in here with them, they’re stuck in here with us.
I already can imagine meta defederates with much of the fediverse on day 1.
Step three is where most likely, instances begin en masse defederating from Threads. Don’t count that out. Folks won’t just blindly go along with things like that.
I have confidence the mastodon instance I’m on, Fosstodon, as well as this instance of kbin, would choose the defederation at this point…as it’s the point of meta becoming a walled garden. Fosstodon is all about free and open…so it goes against their very nature. They refused the invite to join the NDA bound discussion because that goes against their principles. Right now I feel like Ernest and the team running kbin.social feel very much the same way. If I turn out to be wrong about either…well that’s the point I chose to find another instance. Step 3 is my own defederation point. The moment you start closing off your walled garden is the moment you lose a lot of the Fediverse.
A quick Google shows that signing up for Threads requires you to walk the gauntlet of t&C agreements; and deactivating or deleting Threads would lead to your IG account being nuked; and that there’s a following and world feeds both heavily informed by the Meta / IG algorithms.
A challenge to the EEE could be mounted by encouraging other social media giants to form an oligopoly on fediverse. Sadly this would slowly make self hosting a larger pain than it is for most
I was thinking. People like to point out EEE (embrace, extend, extinguish). But from my point of view, I only see EE (embrace, extend). Why do I leave behind the third E, the extinguish one?
Because to extinguish the fediverse, Threads must become a microblogging link aggregator video photo blogging music app. Right now it’s only a microblogging app. Besides, it has to destroy every instance of every service in the fediverse, and, you know, according to this place, there are 12.340 instances, only counting those of Mastodon. Can Threads destroy all those 12.340 Mastodon instances, plus all the Lemmy instances, plus all the PeerTube instances, and so on?
Meta already is already 5/6 of the things you listed out there. Threads is the microblogging product, but Meta is the platform.
They don’t need to destroy every single piece of competition in EEE. That happens much more passively.
They just need to make the others slightly worse to use. A bit at a time. Until a significant decline happens. Until enough users are annoyed about their “green bubbles” or whatever so as to make the switch. To culturally enforce the superiority of their product over others. If you understand the EE part, then you must understand the inevitability of the third. When was the last time you logged into IRC or ICQ? For most people, the answer is “What’s that?” because XMPP and the interoperable protocols in its halo were extinguished. Google Talk and the like joining the arena looked like they would make the sphere better, but instead killed it.
Meta is a publicly-traded company in a capital market. The way they will behave – selfishly and without care of the treatment of their users and customers – is preordained. Their motivations are necessarily corrupt and you need to defend against that.
Meta stands to gain very, very little from maintaining a vibrant and healthy greater fediverse space. It doesn’t need to deliberately intend to harm federation, it just needs to exist with all its power and money and be selfish while doing it.
Ultimately, I don’t know that federation with Meta is damnation for the fediverse. But the risk seems too great to me.
Tbh, I’m pretty sure it can, at least they can make those old communities and places dead with no new content, hoarding it on their own platforms. The fediverse is still relatively small in terms of users. They have had more people sign up then all of Mastadon in one day.
They have had more people sign up then all of Mastadon in one day.
Same as other big social media in the past (Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Instagram…), and yet the fediverse is still here.
Lol whatever you’re having, I don’t want it. Don’t forget your tinfoil hat.
Lol whatever you’re having, I don’t want it.
You mean a “discussion”? Yeah I suppose that’s for the best. Best of luck to you on your frolic through the fediverse!
Uhh googles already done it, and have you tried anything oculus since they bought it?? Meta’s hard on for signing into their proprietary is honestly the biggest out there. Data collection is the reason zucc is rich - it’s like putting a crackhead beside crack
Step 1 won’t happen so easily because Meta cannot allow random people from random instance a write access to the meta instance. People would immediately use the federation to upload criminal content to the meta instance. That would be a first class PR scandal.
If step 1 happens it will be with the active complicity of the admins of the federated instances.
