I strongly encourage instance admins to defederate from Facebook/Threads/Meta.

They aren’t some new, bright-eyed group with no track record. They’re a borderline Machiavellian megacorporation with a long and continuing history of extremely hostile actions:

  • Helping enhance genocides in countries
  • Openly and willingly taking part in political manipulation (see Cambridge Analytica)
  • Actively have campaigned against net neutrality and attempted to make “facebook” most of the internet for members of countries with weaker internet infra - directly contributing to their amplification of genocide (see the genocide link for info)
  • Using their users as non-consenting subjects to psychological experiments.
  • Absolutely ludicrous invasions of privacy - even if they aren’t able to do this directly to the Fediverse, it illustrates their attitude.
  • Even now, they’re on-record of attempting to get instance admins to do backdoor discussions and sign NDAs.

Yes, I know one of the Mastodon folks have said they’re not worried. Frankly, I think they’re being laughably naive >.<. Facebook/Meta - and Instagram’s CEO - might say pretty words - but words are cheap and from a known-hostile entity like Meta/Facebook they are almost certainly just a manipulation strategy.

In my view, they should be discarded as entirely irrelevant, or viewed as deliberate lies, given their continued atrocious behaviour and open manipulation of vast swathes of the population.

Facebook have large amounts of experience on how to attack and astroturf social media communities - hell I would be very unsurprised if they are already doing it, but it’s difficult to say without solid evidence ^.^

Why should we believe anything they say, ever? Why should we believe they aren’t just trying to destroy a competitor before it gets going properly, or worse, turn it into yet another arm of their sprawling network of services, via Embrace, Extend, Extinguish - or perhaps Embrace, Extend, Consume would be a better term in this case?

When will we ever learn that openly-manipulative, openly-assimilationist corporations need to be shoved out before they can gain any foothold and subsume our network and relegate it to the annals of history?

I’ve seen plenty of arguments claiming that it’s “anti-open-source” to defederate, or that it means we aren’t “resilient”, which is wrong ^.^:

  • Open source isn’t about blindly trusting every organisation that participates in a network, especially not one which is known-hostile. Threads can start their own ActivityPub network if they really want or implement the protocol for themselves. It doesn’t mean we lose the right to kick them out of most - or all - of our instances ^.^.
  • Defederation is part of how the fediverse is resilient. It is the immune system of the network against hostile actors (it can be used in other ways, too, of course). Facebook, I think, is a textbook example of a hostile actor, and has such an unimaginably bad record that anything they say should be treated as a form of manipulation.

Edit 1 - Some More Arguments

In this thread, I’ve seen some more arguments about Meta/FB federation:

  • Defederation doesn’t stop them from receiving our public content:
    • This is true, but very incomplete. The content you post is public, but what Meta/Facebook is really after is having their users interact with content. Defederation prevents this.
  • Federation will attract more users:
    • Only if Threads makes it trivial to move/make accounts on other instances, and makes the fact it’s a federation clear to the users, and doesn’t end up hosting most communities by sheer mass or outright manipulation.
    • Given that Threads as a platform is not open source - you can’t host your own “Threads Server” instance - and presumably their app only works with the Threads Server that they run - this is very unlikely. Unless they also make Threads a Mastodon/Calckey/KBin/etc. client.
    • Therefore, their app is probably intending to make itself their user’s primary interaction method for the Fediverse, while also making sure that any attempt to migrate off is met with unfamiliar interfaces because no-one else can host a server that can interface with it.
    • Ergo, they want to strongly incentivize people to stay within their walled garden version of the Fediverse by ensuring the rest remains unfamiliar - breaking the momentum of the current movement towards it. ^.^
  • We just need to create “better” front ends:
    • This is a good long-term strategy, because of the cycle of enshittification.
    • Facebook/Meta has far more resources than us to improve the “slickness” of their clients at this time. Until the fediverse grows more, and while they aren’t yet under immediate pressure to make their app profitable via enshittification and advertising, we won’t manage >.<
    • This also assumes that Facebook/Meta won’t engage in efforts to make this harder e.g. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish/Consume, or social manipulation attempts.
    • Therefore we should defederate and still keep working on making improvements. This strategy of “better clients” is only viable in combination with defederation.

PART 2 (post got too long!)

  • xavier666@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago
    • Meta creates new instance with unlimited amount of resources (Embrace)
    • New users join Meta’s fediverse because it’s advertised as the fastest Fediverse instance
    • As Meta’s instance becomes popular, people joining other instances slows down. All niche communities are created in Meta
      • “Whom would you trust? Zuck or some random Bob? Zuck made Facebook, he must be intelligent”
    • Meta with it’s huge pool of devs create tools for mods and users but they only work for communities inside Meta (Extend)
    • Users in external instances are frustrated when the tools don’t work. Some migrate to Meta.
      • “Here is an easy way to migrate your Fedi account to Meta”
    • Federation with external instances slows down because “of technical issues”.
      • Meta states they will defederate from 3rd party instances
    • Meta’s instance becomes the default since it has more users and more tools (which are proprietary by the way)
    • Future users forget there were even external instances (Extinguish)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish

    • Redredme@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nice write up. But: what’s the gain for meta? Embrace, extend, extinguish is what you do to competition. Don’t forget meta is a Corp. Corps do things for money. All I see in your example is a cash drain. Corps don’t do cash drains. By joining the fediverse they get all that sweet content… For free. No hosting. No administration, just… Content. That’s the best deal ever for any data firm.

      I do see plusses for meta so my take is: embrace? Yes. Extend? Yes. Extinguish? No visible upside, just downsides. So no.

      This is no Microsoft in the 90s. Meta’s product is data. Not office suites or an OS. Why pay for data when the fediverse provides you that for free?

      They want more. Not less.

      • xavier666@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The purpose of the extinguish phase is simple; control

        • All future content is under Zuck moderation policy
        • Can change the narrative of the content as per the advertisers whim
        • Authoritarian governments make nice customers when they want the content to be nudged a certain direction
        • Why federate when you can easily scrape the data from the smaller instances? It’s free anyway

        He will defederate only when he deems the data from the rest of the fediverse to be insignificant and the public reaction is small enough to control. I don’t see that happening in the near future at least.

        I will agree that this is a cash-drain. I don’t know whether his investors will agree with this long-term play (he already burned his metaverse) but I think it’s possible. We should keep our guard up.