Looking through my feed, certain people are really angry that, even though they blocked Threads already, Threads still uses ActivityPub.
Logically, blocking should be enough. They even created a Fedipact. Problem solved, right?
But I think what really bothers them is that Threads is nevertheless using ActivityPub.
Look, in my ideal world everyone would be operating their own Fediverse servers. That’s exactly what I’m doing with atomicpoet.org. But I’m an edge case right now.
If you want to kill Meta, then people who use Meta’s services must be aware of the Fediverse. Right now, most of them know nothing about it. Those who do know about it dismiss it as geekery.
So how are we planning to bring more people to the Fediverse? Do you even want more people or would you rather keep this place an exclusive club?
The notion that the Fediverse is an exclusive club is an illusion. We should have learned that lesson during the #TwitterMigration, but it looks like we’ll learn that lesson yet again.
@atomicpoet nobody cares about them using AP. What they care about is that it gets a free pass at things any other instead would be defederated from, because of how large it is. Any instance that has no problem hosting racists, homophobes, transphobes and other assorted Nazis and Nazi-adjacent figures would be defederated on sight, but Threads is treated differently. «Too big to fail» in federation sauce («Too big to be defederated»)
@atomicpoet the Fediverse has been growing steadily when without Meta. Threads joining the Fediverse won't make it grow faster, won't bring people here, and will in fact be detrimental to the adoption in the long term, since their size effectively wraps the notion of Fediverse “adoption” to a fake number they can subvert at any time by pulling out. We've seen this scenario already with RSS and XMPP, whose mindshare has been completely destroyed by Meta's and Google's rug pulls.
@atomicpoet even worse, we've been seeing it with the web, and now even with email, whose ecosystems are effectively getting splintered between the Big Ones and the indies, with a significantly DECREASED chance that the “normies”, as I've seen them called by Threads fans, ever getting even just a chance to see the world outside of the Big Ones.
Anybody that actually cares about more widespread adoption of the Fediverse should defederate Meta with extreme prejudice.
@atomicpoet saying that people complain about Threads using AP is a misdirection. Nobody cares about that, just like nobody cares that WhatsApp uses XMPP. What they care about is the amount of control that Threads gains by federation, and that some people never learn from them past. “we can just not adopt their extensions” is inconsistent: if you care about them joining is because you care about interoperability, and that would destroy it, bringing us back to the present situation, but worse.
@oblomov@atomicpoet I dont want necessarily bring more people on the fediverse, and / or kill Meta and stuff likes that. I just want them to stay far from me.
@oblomov You sound so sure, but I can think of many cases where things went in the opposite direction.
AOL providing access to the World Wide Web didn’t kill HTTP. Instead, it resulted in the death of AOL.
IBM utilizing off-the-shelf PC parts didn’t kill computer hobbyists. Instead, it resulted in IBM exiting the home computer market.
Then there’s the fact both Google and Meta have already used ActivityStreams streams 15 years ago. Is ActivityStreams dead? Google Buzz already was that rug pull, and now you’re using Mastodon.
I’m also not convinced that collectively blocking Threads will stop Meta from continuing to use ActivityPub and thus influence development. If I convince 1 million people (that’s the MAUs for Mastodon) to block GMail, will that stop Google from influencing email? I doubt it.
I would prefer Meta not be on the Fediverse. Then again, I would also prefer 100 million people to not use Threads. Since Meta is on the Fediverse and 100 million people use Threads, they might as well see my messages urging them to leave Meta.
If Meta blocks me? Oh, well—I still own my server, and I’m better off here than if I joined Threads only to have my account banned there.
At some point, though, people I know on Threads are going to see my atomicpoet.org domain and realize that there’s an alternative to Big Social. Because until they see it in action, ActivityPub is just tech wankery to them.
AOL sold access to content that was OUTSIDE of AOL. AOL couldn't self-isolate because that would cut off their entire business model. Meta users for the most part access content hosted by Meta. They can pull the plug at any time.
The reason why IBM PC compatibles existed was that IBM needed to avoid an antitrust case. Meta has no such risk.
Google and Meta's use of AS without federation is irrelevant, just like WhatsApp's use of XMPP is irrelevant. The issue is the federation, not what they use INTERNALLY.
And again, the point is not to stop Meta from using AP, it's to
avoid them from having any weight on its definition and use. And defederation achieves just that.
The comparison with GMail is nonsensical because GMail is already federated, and always was. Meta isn't yet fully, so this is exactly the right time to block them everywhere, before they fully federate.
And if Meta is federated, you in fact have one less argument to convince people to leave Meta.
If you really prefer Meta not to be on the Fediverse, then joining the ranks of those who block them is literally the only course of action.
@atomicpoet and that people will see your “atomicpoet.org” domain is already a huge assumption with no grounds on reality. Expecting people to wonder about it even more so.
@oblomov Both EU and US are taking Meta to court for antitrust. This is likely why Threads is using ActivityPub—that and not wanting to be responsible for news media.
Again, this is not so different from IBM using off the shelf parts—and no, IBM didn’t use those parts because of antitrust but because they simply thought by entering the microcomputer market, they would dominate. Which they did for awhile. Then when clones started being a concern, IBM tried to do a rug pull with MCA, but it blew up in their faces.
That said, I think your thought that you can limit Meta’s impact on the Fediverse by de-federating it is misguided and won’t work.
Mastodon only has 1 million MAUs. We don’t have an active enough network effect to force Meta’s hand on anything. By them arriving, they’re already the majority of the Fediverse.
How do I know this won’t force Meta’s hand? Because certain servers also defederate mastodon.social, and not once has this resulted in masses of people leaving mastodon.social. Why, then, do you think it will work with Threads when the majority of its users don’t even see the Fediverse right now?
As for atomicpoet.org, you say that seeing my messages won’t result in any change from Threads users. However, I’ve already motivated many people to start running their own servers as well as try something other than Mastodon. And that would have never happened had they not seem my messages.
Visibility results in change. Lack of visibility results in nothing consequential happening. You might think platform evangelization is silly, but I see results.
@atomicpoet The EU doesn't have an antitrust case against Meta, that I know of. The US has been trying for two years but it's still pending. The DMA is a more likely reason for the lip serivce Meta is paying to federation, both with Threads and with with WhatsApp's Signal protocol move. But we both know how effective malicious compliance can be in this space, so don't keep your hopes up for that.
And no, IBM wasn't hoping on interoperability. They thought their proprietary BIOS would be enough to prevent clones (it wasn't). This, and the antitrust threat, is why IBM didn't just buy DOS off MS. Still irrelevant to the Meta/Fediverse case.
The ratio of Mastodon to Threads MAUs wouldn't matter if everybody blocked Meta, because then Meta wouldn't been able to claim a position in the Fediverse at all, just like Gab. The problem arises from scabs like mastodon.social who, despite having been warned months ago, have opted to let Threads in. NOW it's a problem.
Again, the problem arises from letting them in in the first place. m.s was already in, so the comparison doesn't hold. And in fact, that's exactly the reason why it shouldn't have been let in, in the first place! Pandora's box is now open, and plague and death are upon us.
And trying to compare your ability to convince people already on the Fediverse to try something different, compared to people on Meta … well, I have bad news for you, but you'll see that for yourself.
@atomicpoet it’s funny. We want to increase the adoption of Fediverse, but yet not allowing normies to get on the platform on Threads. Activity Pub, as we all know, works different from Twitter. And I don’t see the community is going to change that. Threads somehow abide to the safer environment too. Are we afraid that with the power of money and influence, Meta will change how the protocol works later on?
@atomicpoet yup. And that’s the beauty of Fediverse. Just like how email works. That’s why I don’t understand what makes people upset here. Even without Threads, some instances already have dispute with other instances. What makes it different this time? 🤷🏻♂️
Add comment