Lemmy.world Admin Response to Meta/Threads
Lemmy.world Admin Response to Meta/Threads
There has been significant discussion in recent weeks regarding Meta/Threads. We would like to express our disappointment with the negative and threatening tone of some of these discussions. We kindly ask everyone to engage in civil discourse and remember that not everyone will share the same opinions, which is perfectly acceptable.
When considering whether or not to defederate from Threads, we're looking for a decision based on facts that prioritize your safety. We strive to remain neutral to make an informed choice.
First, there seem to be some misconceptions about how the Fediverse operates based on several posts. We’ve compiled some resource links to help explain the details and address any misunderstandings.
Fed Tips , Fediverse , ActivityPub
Initial Thoughts:
It seems unlikely that Meta will federate with Lemmy. When/if Meta adopts ActivityPub, it will likely affect Mastodon only rather than Lemmy, given Meta's focus on being a Twitter alternative at the moment.
Please note that we have a few months before Threads will even federate with Mastodon, so we have some time to make the right decision.
Factors to Consider:
Factors to consider if Meta federates with Lemmy:
Privacy - While it’s true that Meta's privacy settings for the app are excessive, it’s important to note that these settings only apply to users of the official Threads app and do not impact Lemmy users. It’s worth mentioning that Lemmy does not collect any personal data, and Meta has no means of accessing such data from this platform. In addition, when it comes to scraping data from your post/comments, Meta doesn’t need ActivityPub to do that. Anyone can read your profile and public posts as it is today.
Moderation - If a server hosts a substantial amount of harmful content without performing efficient and comprehensive moderation, it will create an excessive workload for our moderators. Currently, Meta is utilizing its existing Instagram moderation tools. Considering there were 95 million posts on the first day, this becomes worrisome, as it could potentially overwhelm us and serve as a sufficient reason for defederation.
Ads - It’s possible if Meta presents them as posts.
Promoting Posts - It’s possible with millions of users upvoting a post for it to trend.
Embrace, extend, and extinguish (EEE) - We don't think they can. If anyone can explain how they technically would, please let us know. Even if Meta forks Lemmy and gets rid of the original software, Lemmy will survive.
Instance Blocking - Unlike Mastodon, Lemmy does not provide a feature for individual users to block an instance (yet). This creates a dilemma where we must either defederate, disappointing those who desire interaction with Threads, or choose not to defederate, which will let down those who prefer no interaction with Threads.
Blocking Outgoing Federation - There is currently no tool available to block outgoing federation from lemmy.world to other instances. We can only block incoming federation. This means that if we choose to defederate with our current capabilities, Threads will still receive copies of lemmy.world posts. However, only users on Threads will be able to interact with them, while we would not be able to see their interactions. This situation is similar to the one with Beehaw at the moment. Consequently, it leads to significant fragmentation of content, which has real and serious implications.
Conclusion:
From the points discussed above, the possible lack of moderation alone justifies considering defederation from Threads. However, it remains to be seen how Meta will handle moderation on such a large scale. Additionally, the inability of individuals to block an instance means we have to do what is best for the community.
If you have any added points or remarks on the above, please send them to @[email protected].
You're viewing a single thread.
Hi, I'm new. Been hanging out for a few days and I like what this instance, this piece of software (Lemmy) and what the fediverse does, for a multitude of reasons. I'll admit I'm new to the federation stuff, so my knowledge is limited, but I deeply wish for the fediverse to gain a massive foothold and become the norm for how to do social media stuff in the future.
Before I share a thought, I figured I should say that the transparency is super appreciated, and I support the current stance regardless. That said...
On the topic of EEE:
It's been bothering me lately that the discussion of whether or not Meta will engange in EEE-type tactics is centered around whether or not they will try to squeeze out Lemmy or Mastodon. Isn't that a bit of a pointless discussion? The problem, and the reason why Meta federating with these open communities is so scary, is that if we allow them to become the biggest provider in the space alongside all the various instances that are running either Lemmy or Mastodon, is that they'll start dictating the future of AcitivityPub itself. Whether or not Meta will try to embrace and strangle Mastodon is sort of besides the point, the fear is that they'll do to ActivityPub what Google did to XMPP and probably many other companies have done to many other fun standards and technologies.
The reason I personally think we shouldn't federate, under any circumstances, is for exactly that reason. Sure, we'll (or I guess Mastodon-users) will only see a rise on content and people to engage with which is good and allows us to take part without being the person who refuses to use socks in the room, but it sort of also devalues Lemmy and Mastodon (moreso Mastodon) by making the "default choice" Threads, doesn't it? That gives Meta insane leverage over the protocol itself, and should they wish to, they absolutely could position themselves to dictate the future of ActivityPub. Even worse, they could build ontop of ActivityPub and choke our spaces out, just like they did with XMPP.
Why is this never discussed? I didn't see any thoughts on this in Rochko's post on the matter either, and I have to admit I feel slightly uncomfortable at the thought that this particular part of the discussion is sidestepped. It doesn't matter if they fork Lemmy or Mastodon, or any other client-software built on top of ActivityPub for that matter, what worries me (and maybe others) is by devaluing our own "platforms" we automatically crown Meta the king of the protocol, because they become said default choice and hold massive leverage over content.
This is probably the exact issue a lot of Reddit-users looking for new spaces are feeling right now; the content is sort of locked to that other place with no way to actively "force" (nor should they have, just to have that said) content to happen here. If we open the doors, federate, and Meta decides to make their interpretation of AP in such a way that Lemmy or Mastodon devs really can't effectively share that content both ways, it likely will end up killing them (and AP to a degree) in the future once that link is dead or dying, and users will end up leaving to follow the content they want. That drain is gonna leave a lot of instances barren. At the same time, in the here and now, by using "we're federated with Threads!" as a selling point effectively kills our current momentum too, because why not just register with Threads then? It's the bigger platform, all the users are there and it's company-ran and so safe to stay for a while. So that initial surge and following smaller surges just won't happen, because Meta sucked the wind out of our sales.
Just thinking out loud. I still think the position held in OP is good, and at this point I agree, but I wish the talk around EEE was about AP, not the softwares we're using to have this little panic attack on. Meta, if of ill-intent, has likely not set their sights at Mastodon and Lemmy, they're looking to embrace, extend and extinguish ActivityPub.
In terms of the issue of losing content if meta is allowed to control that much content, that is one reason why I support preemptive defederation. You can't lose something you never had.