This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Rottcodd, in I don't get people that are here in the fediverse and *want to bring over* the content that is on FB, IG, TikTok, etc.
Rottcodd avatar

I agree completely.

I recently compared it to sitting in a comfortable little cafe that serves delicious food and looking around and saying, "Gee, I wish this was a McDonalds."

It just doesn't even begin to make sense to me.

And I'm with you - gatekeeping or no - anyone who wants Twitter or Reddit or Facebook content can already go to Twitter or Reddit or Facebook to get it, and that's exactly what they should do.


that’s a great analogy

CrazyEddie041 avatar

It's appropriate because that kind of shit happens irl, too. Small city with a cool local vibe becomes popular, people move to the city because it's popular, all the popular stuff gets priced out and paved over to make room for more Starbucks. Then people whine about how cool the city used to be. Gee, I wonder what happened to it?!


Having gone through that, there are also Starbucks suits and the owners of the buildings housing the Starbucks yelling at you that this is WHAT YOU NEED!


Just defederate the Meta instances, and your problem is solved, right?

It’s not like saying “I wish this awesome little bar is a McDonald’s” but “I don’t want to go to a bar in a city that also has a McDonalds”.


More like a small town that used to have real restaurants that got driven out of business when McDonalds came to town selling shit on a plate so cheap it was impossible to be price competitive with food suitable for humans.

The mere existence of McDonalds dramatically hurt the options available.

Rottcodd, (edited )
Rottcodd avatar

Well... yes and no.

I'm not talking about any effect I think it might have on me, because yes - I can just avoid the instances favored by morons.

To belabor the analogy a bit more, it's not quite accurate to say that they want this neat little cafe to be McDonalds - they want the entire town to be McDonalds. They want to be able to open up their door snd see nothing but McDonalds, stretching to the horizon in all directions.

That that literally can't happen - that the decentralized nature of the ActivityPub means that the most anyone can ever do is turn instances into empty wastelands of brain-dead "content" one at a time - doesn't make their viewpoint any less perplexing to me.

Poggervania avatar

That’s what had me confused at first when people were leaving Reddit but going “bRiNg ReDdIt CoNtEnT oVeR aNd DeLeTe ReDdIt!” and using the whole “we need content” as a reason.

Like, if y’all want content from social media platforms… use those social media platforms. In my mind’s eye, I see the Fediverse as more of an old-school forum where people can make any forum for specific communities, not as a content-vomiting platform.


The issue I have with this analogy is that the food here isn't quite that great. Maybe the service is better and it's less crowded and more friendly, but the menu is pretty limited and not everything it serves even matches the fast food's quality. I guess there's merits from being loyal to your local cafeteria and its community even if it's not always the best, but lets not exaggerate the quality being delivered here.

I used to browse reddit for gaming news, especially indie games, and the communities I found for this on Lemmy didn't pick up any momentum yet.

Rottcodd avatar

Mm... you do have a point, but I would argue that the content is generally better at the very least to the degree that it's actual people sincerely posting things rather than bots, shills and karma farmers spamming and/or astroturfing.

And yes - niche communities are extremely underpopulated here.

I don't think the solution to that though is to aim for more generic "content" with the hope that it'll lead to broad growth and that a byproduct of that will be to bring more people who happen to share your interests. The solution IMO is to get on the communities you want to see grow and start contributing stuff, right now. Even if you're just posting to one person, keep at it, and pretty soon it'll be two, then three, then...


But I’m here because I can’t get reddit content anymore in the format I want to consume it. I didn’t have an issue with the content of reddit, just the owners.


Same. Ideally, Lemmy would be a Reddit replacement for me.

@Marxine@lemmy.world avatar

But it can be a replacement with original content. Even if they have the same topics, it’s beneficial to let each community grow their own culture.

MeowdyPardner avatar

I don't necessarily disagree, I just think that the solution is to cultivate the content here. Not connect with the same old corporate platforms that caused the problems in the first place.


I wouldn’t mind if someone stole and curated the top posts from certain subreddits I’m interested in.

I really don’t dislike reddit for their communities but for their CEO and corporate greed. The content is great.

I’m not there because I don’t want to give them money after they mistreated their users.

@zeppo@lemmy.world avatar

I got a tired of the cliched site culture and some people’s attitudes. I suppose it’s because it’s such a large slice of the public that you get more people being dicks and leaving drive-by jerky comments. The overdone in-jokes and pun threads got to be a bit much too. I needed something like Lemmy to demonstrate what I was missing on reddit.

tal avatar

Also, I don't think that the way to deal with "there is content on a platform that I don't like" is to run from it. It's to make better filtering systems to choose what I want. Two reasons:

  • First, some people like different things. They shouldn't have to use different platforms just for that.

  • Second, stuff like spam will show up anywhere that has decent size anyway eventually, once there are enough eyeballs for it.

I think that the goal should be to have plenty of content of all sorts on the Threadiverse, and then just have good filtering tools that are hard to subvert.

Reddit didn't let people build the filtering tools they wanted in and in some cases -- like when it came to their own ads -- were actively opposed to that. The Threadiverse solves that problem for me.


I thought I didn’t until I came here and realized how nasty Reddit has become. You can go days on Lemmy without encountering an angry asshole.


I’m in the same boat. I want Lemmy to be a firehose of content, the overwhelming majority of which I won’t ever want to interact with. I want that because different people are interested in different things, and that’s what allows for even the niche communities to find their footing with more than a small contingent of people.

I think the tools at our disposal as users and administrators of Fediverse systems are already good enough to manage and control your own experience, and I’m confident that they’ll continue to improve at a rapid click. The experience of using Lemmy as a Reddit replacement has already improved dramatically since June 12th, and it does so every day. I appreciate that others may feel much more strongly about the “dumbing down” of the overall content and community than I do, and for those folks joining an instance that outright defederates is a great option.

Folks are quick to tell people how they should be using Lemmy. “Don’t sign up for one of the big instances, you should use a small one instead because federation” is a big one - but there’s a lot of appeal in this model with being signed up to the instances generating the majority of the content the broader community is consuming because it makes finding that content easier than it otherwise would be. My hope is that the larger instances like lemmy.world will at least test the waters with Threads federation to see what it actually does to the community before taking the step of defederation, because right now those large instances are what’s feeding the rest of the rest of Lemmy.

As it stands, having those large instances federated with Threads and having smaller communities defederated seems like a best of both worlds scenario, because a small instance defederating with Threads won’t lose out on the other content being generated by those larger instances, but those who want to trudge through the mire of mass appeal can do so in one place.

ScaNtuRd, in Meta will kill small instances! Please read.

I’m hoping that ALL admins across the Fediverse will defederate from Meta. At least we get to have our own separate platform then.

thablkafrodite avatar

I feel like this will just hurt us more then help.

Xeelee avatar

How exactly will it hurt us to not be usurped by an evil megacorp?


How will not federating with them prevent that?

Xeelee avatar

If we federate with Meta, we will be immediately drowned out by the huge user numbers of the Meta properties. They already have more users on day one than the entire fediverse.


I mean, if they actually subscribe to threads and discussions across instances, and isn't that kind of the point of a social network? For users to use it? Also odd that half the arguments against it are that it will kill the fediverse and half of the arguments are that it will provide too many users to the fediverse.


I don’t see why this would hurt us. But even if it did, I would rather take the blow than associate with Big Tech again.

TaleOfSam avatar

Meta willingly under-moderated across large swaths of east Asia and Africa, leading to unchecked rumors and tangible acts of genocide. Zuckerberg has compared himself to Augustus Caesar.

I think it’s acceptable to cut off a wildfire before it spreads.



  • Loading...
  • masterspace,

    I'm not asking you to trust them, I'm asking how defederating accomplishes anything? They got more users than the entire fediverse in a single day. We are not hurting them by cutting them off, we are merely making the fediverse seem more like a barren hostile place for a bunch of weirdo nerds.

    snooggums avatar

    The goal is not to hurt meta, but to keep meta from hurting the rest of the federated sites. Like not inviting a known their to the community barbecue because they are known to have stolen tons of food from other community meals. We aren't keeping them from creating their own dinner or anything by not federating, just keeping them away from ours.


    Except in this analogy, Meta hasn't stolen food before. They run the largest bbq around, and have bought out previous corporate competitor bbqs, and now they're hosting a giant bbq one way or another, they're just suggesting you put a gate in the fence so that people can flow back and forth between the small community bbq and their large corporate one.

    Is that going to make you nervous since they have such a cool giant bbq that people are inevitably going to want to go there? Yeah, but again, that's the case regardless of whether or not the gate goes in.

    Sabata11792 avatar

    Meta is showing up to the neighborhood bbq to shoot the cook and buy the grill from the estate sale. There also going to call it supporting the grieving family.

    snooggums avatar

    Shilling for Meta is a bad look.

    They steal people's data and don't follow data privacy laws. They draw people in with unethical business practices, not fair competition like in your example.

    People are not worried about people using Meta outside of the fediverse. In your analogy Meta is already easily accessible through the internet in general and people can feel free to use both without needing a special gate.


    Shilling for Meta is a bad look.

    Does it look like I care whether or not I agree with the hive mind?

    They draw people in with unethical business practices, not fair competition like in your example.

    My example included them buying out their competition which is not fair, it's blatantly anti-competitive. Fairness has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

    People are not worried about people using Meta outside of the fediverse. In your analogy Meta is already easily accessible through the internet in general and people can feel free to use both without needing a special gate.

    And in my example the gate doesn't harm the fediverse at all, it just makes it more convenient for users of both bbqs, being my entire point. There is nothing to be lost by federating with Meta.



  • Loading...
  • masterspace,

    Your argument entirely boils down to "domain blocking is still buggy", when Threads doesn't even support ActivityPub yet.

    Once it launches, just block their instance.



  • Loading...
  • masterspace,

    Defederating means not interacting with the crowd Meta brings in. I have a bunch of other reasons but that's my main one. And before you suggest blocking, you can't possibly expect me to block all 10M of their users and the domain block is bugged. I know because I tried.

    Your point here is that blocking all of meta's instance is too hard because instance blocking is buggy.

    Besides, this place doesn't look like much of a barren wasteland since we're interacting with a bunch of people right now. I don't mind interacting with only weirdo nerds if they're nicer people. Quantity doesn't mean quality after all.

    This is just refuting my characterization of this place as barren.

    For the people who want to interact with Threads because of family and friends, they should just make an account there. Just don't let Meta destroy this small part of the internet.

    This is saying nothing other than "Meta will destroy the fediverse", again, without articulating how that would be possible.

    !deleted201250, (edited )


  • Loading...
  • masterspace, (edited )
    1. The regulatory angle makes the most sense given the scrutiny they're under from regulators, courts, the FTC consent orders, etc. Also entirely possible that the product manager building the project was able to pitch the fediverse because it was the hot trendy thing (NFTs, metaverse, ai, web 3, decentral etc.)

    2. Given their history of buying WhatsApp and Instagram? Those aren't examples of EEE those are examples of anti-competitive corporate buyouts that should be illegal but aren't. Facebook does not have a history of EEE, and continue to be a large open source contributor, maintaining multiple open source libraries, frameworks, and protocols.

    3. Because you can just block their instance.

    4. They're scraping and selling your data regardless, this doesn't change anything.

    5. Sounds like a lot more potential moderators.

    6. I dunno probably the same way that half of Reddit posts are Twitter links. It will be fine. You can stay talking to your nerdy friends in the nerdy communities.

    7. Threads came out of New Product Experimentation (NPE), Meta's (now defunct) experimentation division that produced tons of different experimental apps to see what would stick, or in this case, to have a card to play if a rival social media network were to suddenly implode for some reason. Was it developed in good faith in regards to Twitter or creating a healthy competitive business landscape? No. Was it developed in good faith in regards to the fediverse? Yeah, they're not gunning after the dozens of Mastodon users.

    8. Until someone can actually state how federation with Meta would harm the fediverse, I'm for it. That EEE blog post that everyone keeps circulating does not do that. Its a quite frankly dumb take from someone who loved a protocol so much they didn't realize that users didn't. XMPP never had that many users, Google Talk did. The lesson to learn from that story is not that Google killed XMPP it's that a protocol's openness does not matter compared to user experience. It's awesome if you can have both, but if push comes to shove, and the protocol can't keep up, then the better UX will always win out, even if it's closed.

    9. No, I wouldn't add them or interact with them.

    10. I trust that they will do what they say want to do, which is to try and get a lot of users and make money advertising to them.

    Now, I've answered 10 of your questions and I'm still waiting to hear what the problem with federating with them is that's not just someone blindly regurgitating that same blog post, or making vague accusations that they're so intrinsically evil we'll be cursed if we look at them too long.


    Lemmy is run by a bunch of tankies and the entire fediverse is under-moderated.

    Cutting off a ton of users and content from the fediverse is stupid and everyone in here just keeps coming up with vague generalities because they're scared of Meta rather than have actually thought through what will happen and be able to articulate any actual harms.

    sour, (edited )
    sour avatar

    why shouldn't people be scared of meta


    The reactions you are seeing are based off of Metas history. We will see how it works out.


    i’ll take those “tankies” over completely unaccountable thiel’s buddies any day. actual tankies seem to be contained to lemmygrad where they don’t bother anyone outside of their instance


    Do people think socialists or communists are bothered by this term tankie? It’s like called a white person cracker. It’s not really the effect youre hoping for, I promise.


    People have articulated all kinds of actual harms, including two possibilities in the OP, but frankly they're irrelevant.

    We know what Meta's goals are, and we know they have absolutely no moral standards whatsoever. Exactly how they try to accomplish those goals doesn't matter. We shouldn't give them the opportunity to try anything.

    We should be scared of Meta, and we should keep them as far away as possible. Anything else is reckless and stupid at best.


    People have articulated all kinds of actual harms, including two possibilities in the OP, but frankly they're irrelevant.

    No, they didn't. The harm listed was that Meta will make a shinier platform that will syphon away users, that is happening regardless and is not a harm that is a result of federation, it's a harm that's a result of meta having more money to build a better platform.

    We know what Meta's goals are, and we know they have absolutely no moral standards whatsoever. Exactly how they try to accomplish those goals doesn't matter. We shouldn't give them the opportunity to try anything.

    There goal is to launch a twitter competitor with a lot of users and make money off advertising. Nothing about that conflicts with the fediverse.

    Like I said, this thread is filled with a bunch of people shaking in their boots about the company who must not be named rather than actually providing sober rational assessment of what's likely to happen.


    Yeah, you think they give a shit about the fediverse? They’re using ActivityPub because it’s easier for them. They’re not going to want to EEE us, because there’s not enough of us to matter to them.


    It's not easier for them, and once there's enough people to matter then it's too late to kill it. The fediverse is growing, and they want to stop that before the fediverse is big enough to matter.


    that is happening regardless and is not a harm that is a result of federation

    Yes, it is. Read this: https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html

    There goal is to launch a twitter competitor with a lot of users and make money off advertising.

    They can do that without integrating with the fediverse. The reason they're going to integrate with the fediverse is to embrace, extend, and extinguish.


    Yeah, I've read that, and it's not an example of a corporation killing a decentralized network through federation, it's just a normal example of a corporation killing a decentralized network by having more money to make a better app.

    XMPP did not die because Google used that protocol, it died because people preferred using Google Talk over any of the XMPP apps. That would be the case regardless of whether Google used XMPP or not.


    Real life is not speech and debate, and it isn't an ad hominem to look at Meta's past actions and to expect that they will continue in the same way.

    We don't have to have a crystal ball and be able to detail exactly what will happen and when to know that this is bad news. Expecting random internet users to outthink a mega corp and send an accurate and verified copy of their plan is absurd, and it seems like a bad faith attempt at discussion.

    @Marxine@lemmy.world avatar

    “Boo hoo tankies bad, but big corpo run by billionaires who spread misinformation and intentionally act to topple legitimate governments in favor of their fascist agenda are akshually good”

    Arguing with people like you (corporate shill) is a waste of time, so I’d rather have fun instead.

    losttourist avatar

    How is that any different from what we have now?

    Threads has launched, but has federation disabled. So right now Threads is a standalone system, and it and the Fediverse cannot intercommunicate.

    If Threads later adds in federation but all the of the Fediverse blocks them, we're in exactly the situation that exists right this minute. And that doesn't seem to be hurting the Fediverse at all.


    I feel different

    Anomander avatar

    I don't think so; it won't hurt 'us' anymore than we were hurt yesterday, when Threads hadn't launched yet.


    Growth at any cost is the mindset that not only ruins anything good for profit, it is also the exact issue we are facing now in real life with the right gaining traction in many liberal and multicultural democracies.

    Because everyone is being let in, without a second thought on if they even should be there, we now have massive social issues with not at all integrated subcultures in Europe that embrace values diametrically opposed to our tolerant and pluralist societies, in turn empowering the right to ruin any progress made in an effort to throw out the brown people again.

    The right question to ask is not “can we accept this new member to our society?”, the right question is “should we accept this new member into our society based on their beliefs and values, based on if they can contribute anything to the existing society?”

    And to return to the matter at hand, this is what the fediverse is supposed to be. A bunch of communities and little realms, each with their own rules and interests but united in their belief that self determination and democratic structures make for a better and more fair internet. And then we have the meta intruder we are about to welcome with open arms, without any rules or expectations of him to adopt our values and culture, so they bring their own, corporate, centralized culture and use their money to brute force that culture into every place of importance.

    It is not racist or intolerant of societies to expect newcomers to assimilate, and ignoring that fact brought us a re emerging right.

    And it is not fearmongering or small minded to be extremely sceptical of Facebook trying to establish themselves in the fediverse, they are literally the OG data and privacy violating corporation, they invented echo chambers and connecting extremists. There is zero value to the fediverse in welcoming meta. The only one who wins if that happens is meta.

    @teft@lemmy.world avatar

    Well said.


    Exactly. Facebook is a known bad actor. There is absolutely no reason to believe their intentions are anything but evil. Pretending Threads is just another instance is both naive and dangerous. It is a cancer. If allowed to federate, it will metastacize.


    Facebook is not evil, advertising is.

    The people at Facebook aren't sitting there plotting to make the world worse, they're just sitting there figuring out how to make the numbers go up and since they're an advertising driven business, that means engagement metrics, which leads to the vast majority of their resultant evil. The advertising / engagement driven business model is what is actually evil and what could actually be addressed by legislators.

    Calcharger avatar

    Do you really want the Instagram crowd to interact with us...?


    At least there would be people and content to interact with.

    sour avatar

    quality != quantity


    If I was interested in those people and their content I could go there. I'm here because I absolutely do not want to see any of it.


    I assume you only subscribed to text based subreddits then? Never once clicked on an image or gif that came from IG / Tiktok /etc.?

    My god stop being such a gatekeeping judgemental douche. Tons of reddit content was on subs like r/aww and /r/animalsbeingderps that was exactly as trite as the stuff posted on IG, if it wasn't directly copied from it.

    Calcharger avatar

    I am on TikTok and was on Reddit. I like my FYP on TikTok. I go on Instagram to see what old friends are up to and the suggested content is awful and mean spirited. Same with Facebook. I don't want that crap here

    @leraje@lemmy.world avatar

    Based on your posts so far my friend, its becoming clearer why you think there’s no one to interact with.


    Lol, ironically my comments in this thread going against the hive mind have gotten more interaction than any others

    Calcharger avatar

    I am finding plenty of content to interact with here. It just might not be my first choice, but I'm getting along fine. It's still early

    Saturdaycat avatar

    I've been on Instagram for 3 years trying to build up an art profile, sharing my artwork. I think it's not Us vs Them, all sorts of people are spread out everywhere online.

    I'm happy to be here on the fediverse with my fediverse accounts, not threads. I'm extremely despondent about threads existing.

    Calcharger avatar

    No reason to be despondent until they actually make the leap to the fediverse and we discuss what the plan is to federate. Threads will not automatically federated with everyone. We will have a long time to look at what threads is and what kind of content they will bring


    That will just drive many Fedi-users to Meta.

    Different instances will make different decisions and users will go to the instances that suit their preferences. That’a how it is supposed to work and the only way it hurts the Fediverse is if we get flooded with threads complaining that other people have different preference, dammit.


    They shouldn’t just defederate from Meta, they should defederate from any other instances that federate with Meta. Like a firewall against late stage capitalism

    Elkaki123, (edited )

    Why? If you have blocked meta shouldn’t you already be exempt from seeing comments and posts by their users on other instances? Why is this punitive approach needed

    Edit: (Alongside downvoting, an explanation might be better suited to change people’s minds, I just eant to know the advantage of this approach since you are excluding yourself from many users and you would have already blocked meta in this scenario)


    You’d see comments and posts from their users on other instances that don’t block Meta.

    It’s unclear how many users you would actually exclude, I think a lot of users who are on the fediverse right now don’t want to have anything to do with Meta.

    As the fediverse grows, there will be different bubbles with not much interaction between those, mainly because some instances won’t be moderated while others will try to create discrimination free environments.


    Just so I understand, blocking an instance:


    • block people from that instance from interactinh with yours
    • blocks people from your own indtance being able to search theirs
    • blocks communities from that instance to appear on /all

    It doesn’t:

    • Block comments if done on non blockef instance
    • Block posts if done on non blocked instance

    Is that right? I was under the impression that defederating would block them completely, as that is how it worked over at mastodon, if it doesn’t that seems like a serious oversight.


    If you have blocked meta shouldn’t you already be exempt from seeing comments and posts by their users on other instances?

    Yes, at least that’s how it is explained in How the beehaw defederation affects us, Back then, beehaw.org defederated from lemmy.world.

    Why do I see posts/comments from beehaw users on communities outside lemmy.world and beehaw.org?

    That’s because the “true” version of those posts is outside beehaw. So we get updates from those posts. And lemmy.world didn’t defederate beehaw, so posts/comments from beehaw users can still come to versions hosted on lemmy.world.

    The reverse is not true. Because beehaw defederate lemmy.world, any post/comment from a lemmy.world users will NOT be sent to the beehaw version of the post.

    Third instance communities

    Finally, we have the example of communities that are on instances that have not been defederated by beehaw.org.

    We can see all three of these versions look pretty similar. That’s because for the most part they are. We are identical with lemmy.ml, as lemmy.ml hosts the “true” version, and we get all updates from the “true” version. Beehaw.org will not get posts/comments from us, so beehaw actually doesn’t have the most “true” version of this community.

    Translated into the current context:

    • beehaw.org = your instance, which defederates from Threads
    • lemmy.world = Threads (sorry folks, just to eplain the mechanics)
    • lemmy.ml = another instance, which is federated with both, your instance and Threads


    • You wont see posts or commens from Threads users in that remote community. You also won’t see reactions to those activities from anyone, anywhere. It’s as if comment chains started by Threads users don’t exist.
    • Threads will not see posts and comments from you, even if done in communities from instances which are federated with Threads.

    Or what do you think, @amiuhle?

    MarioBarisa, (edited )

    But that is a double-edged sword. What if, for example, mastodon.social doesn’t defederate with Meta, but you defederate mastodon.social? Now you’ve just cut yourself off from a huge portion of the fediverse. Admins should defederate from Meta if their community wants to do that, but defederating from other instances that didn’t do that is going a bit too far, in my opinion.


    A small price to pay for salvation from Meta.


    I’ve already blocked mastodon.social.




    Because the size of it, the sheer centralization around it, it creeps me out.

    1chemistdown, in Dude, where's my Kbin? - Apollo Town
    1chemistdown avatar

    Kbin wasn’t that old and @ernest has been pretty open about everything. Like, they had this set up for a few friends and their friends. Kbin went from a couple hundred to thousands of people in zero time. Kbin gets a bit of space to make something.

    murphys_lawyer, in How would you feel about awards on lemmy?

    Could we like, not immediately talk about monetisation 1 month after leaving reddit? If you want to support your instance host, you can ask for a way to donate.

    lesnake, (edited )

    The hard truth is that long term, we likely need another way besides donations to keep the ecosystem alive.

    static avatar

    I would like to see some numbers first. Donations work fine for mastodon.

    Edit : here are mastodon.world financials https://blog.mastodon.world/

    lesnake, (edited )

    Looks like donations work surprisingly well with the current userbase and current expenses. The projects on opencolective are doing quite well.

    Lets just hope this stays that way for a while.

    I doubt its sustainable that way forever though if more reddit users and subreddits migrate. So if donations arent enough anymore in the future, I hope they choose something like awards instead of flooding the site with ads, analytics or paywals.

    static avatar

    So when scaling up

    You expect that : costs per user rise and donations per user drop?

    I expect that: costs per user drop, donations per user stay the same, and external subsidies rise.


    Basically yes, but I also assume the cost per users drops/stays the same

    I think the next ppl joining are mostly teens who dont consider donating,but would consider occasionally buying something like awards

    I doubt external subsidies can cover the missing donations.

    Edit: Also I assume ppl in their early 20s are more likely to buy awards than donate.

    static, (edited )
    static avatar

    And even then there could be donated vs award servers.
    I prefer to focus on the donated ones.

    It was a bit mean/dishonest from me to frame costs for you.
    my guess of dounations just does not match yours.


    I assume you that awards are optional for each server.

    How would you determine if awards are enabled? The server of the community or the server where the account was created?

    static avatar

    You do not, awards do not propogate to other servers.


    Donations seem to work fine for Wikipedia as well. Same with internet archive. We should not underestimate the willingness of people to support a good cause.


    Maybe something like signals donator badge would be a better solution

    567PrimeMover avatar

    I would love to see a social media network run under this model, and I think lemmy, kbin, etc are great candidates for that. The decentralized nature of the fediverse allows costs and user load to get spread out to other instances, vs. something centralized which concentrates all that on one org/person. I feel that makes a donation only system much more attainable


    It’s almost like people are willing to spend money for a good cause, when they are not constantly being pressured and scammed into it.


    This really needs to be higher.

    Running a Mastodon or Lemmy server is surprisingly cheap. With some specific tweaks and rules (esp. hosting images and video elsewhere), it can get even cheaper.

    If your only goal is to break even, then it’s amazingly easy. Roughly 1 of every 20 users contributing $1/month. Adjust the numbers as you see fit.

    Or a single, non-datamined ad at the top of the page.


    Or maybe some people just can’t imagine how this could work without being centered around money.

    Lemmy has been around for years. New instances are popping up as new users come in. So far, I haven’t seen an instance suffering from lack of funds, but others being funded for months ahead, some even donating excess funds to Lemmy devs.

    All while topics like these pop up every other day. For me, it looks like catastrophization. Seeking solutions for problems which do not exist (yet? Not even sure about that).


    I dont expect a decentralised platform to be profitable and also think donations are better than in-app purchases.

    But I dont want big instances to suddenly turn off because they cant afford it anymore or the development being behind so much we loose users to missing features.

    Looking at the donation pages of lemmy instances there are enough donations for now but it is good to have a plan B for in case we get flooded by users not willing to donate so this platform survives long term. That plan B should be as least Invasive as possible,so no ads,analytics or paywall. Thats why I suggested something that is completely cosmetic.


    I think a good start before all of that would be for struggling instances to tell their user base that they are struggling.

    Not going to lie, awards like that would probably make me start looking for another new platform again. I don’t want that part of reddit, personally. I want comments that are there to be there, not comments that are only there to get the most positive feedback. For me, doing this would take lemmy further away from being an open forum, and move it closer towards being a lame popularity contest. I can only see the same jokes so many times.

    Kill_joy, (edited ) in What does defederating from Meta's Threads.net actually accomplish?
    Kill_joy avatar

    From what I have read, I think it's all of the above.

    • a space is wanted free from corps, ads, data perversion

    • people are fearful that 30 million people joining threads has automatically made it the largest instance. Once it integrates with ActivityPub and can federate, it will dominate the space and produce the majority of the content. People are fearful then meta will retract it/ defederate and take the majority of content and content production with it (EEE). This would effectively kill the fediverse.

    • many believe meta will not act in good faith and is doing this to appease European courts and laws

    Because of all of this people likely believe keeping threads quarantined right off the bat is the best solution to mitigate the amount of damage they can do to what's already been established.

    Edit: I am adding to this post as I just stumbled across a post from the host of the lemm.ee instance (which I am a big fan of). He has also listed some great cons of Facebook stepping into the fediverse:

    -there is nothing stopping facebook from sending out ads as posts/comments with artificially inflated scores which would ensure they end up on the front page of "all" for federated servers
    -threads already has more users than all of Lemmy's instances... therefore, they can completely control what the front page looks like by dictating what their users see and vote on
    -moderation does not seem like a priority for threads which would increase workload for smaller instances

    I paraphrased a lot of this but as this is getting some traction I wanted to provide additional visibility to the cons of federating with the Facebook.


    Just to play devil's advocate:
    There could be some downsides to defederating it too:

    • threads could be a gateway to bring more people into the rest of the fediverse in a user friendly way.

    • It might cause the rest of the fediverse outside of threads to be more fragmented if some defedarate it and some don't.

    Kill_joy avatar

    Absolutely agree. The optimist in me wants to be excited for what this means and how this could impact the future of, well, the Internet.

    But then I remember this is Meta we're taking about. They do not do things that are good for anyone but Meta. As someone who doesn't use meta products, this brings concern.

    theterrasque, (edited )

    I’ve pointed it out a few times, but I think it still bears repeating.

    Meta have done a lot of open source development, and in that way you’re using “meta” products daily. They are the people behind React and GraphQL, for example.

    React (and React native, also them) is one of the biggest JavaScript frameworks, and GraphQL is an alternative to REST api’s that brings solutions to many problems around REST api’s.

    I can almost guarantee you that some of the pages you visit in a day use at least one of those.

    They also have a lot of other things. You might have heard of pytorch, a major library for developing and running AI projects.

    Just have a look at github.com/facebook and github.com/facebookresearch/

    Edit: to clarify, my point is that maybe meta only thinks of itself, but technology wise they do it pretty altruistic and help the related technological communities a lot.


    They do not do things that are good for anyone but Meta.

    They definitely do things selfishly in a way that maximises benefits to meta and ignore any downsides to anyone else, but while thier impact is probably mostly negative, there's some small positive aspects to some things they do, sometimes...

    GONADS125, (edited )

    This is such a blatantly obvious truth that I’m starting to suspect some users here are astroturfing, peddling this bullshit feigned naivety about the rampant unethical practices of FB/Meta. There’s enough history that we don’t need to question it or give Meta a chance.

    I’ve been working on building the !vans community, but I may look into moving it to another instance if lemmy.world doesn’t change their mind on federating with Threads.

    Edit: I guess they’ve only stated their plan for Mastodon, which is wait and see.


    Yeah, it feels like everyday there’s a new post asking “HEY GUYS SHOULDNT WE ACTUALLY FEDERATE WITH THREADS?”.


    Agreed, feels like bots are here pushing for federation with Facebook.

    @Coelacanth@feddit.nu avatar

    Pretty much this, and I’d like to emphasize the part where Threads userbase outnumber the Fediverse 30 to 1 after only one day.

    Lemmy is evolving into a very nice place so far because of the type of users it’s attracted, and the fear is that the atmosphere would shift on a dime when the voices here get drowned out by hundreds of millions of commenters from Instagram and Facebook.


    I started a community to track the H5N1 global outbreak but I do NOT want to moderate it long term; if it picks up, the anti-vax/Plandemic people are going to start showing up (they already do sometimes in the subreddit for it). I feel like opening the doors to Threads is going to hasten that.


    A few years ago, Reddit strategically banned two terrible subreddits during one of their shitstorms (the whole AMA firing scandal), just as Voat was getting popular. It turned from a decent community that was starting to grow and challenge Reddit’s presence, to a right-wing extremist cesspool overnight.

    You also see this sort of thing happen to subreddits all the time. Some of them go from a good community, and either slowly or quickly, shifts into a much more terrible version of itself. Russian bots/ops have transformed subs to push their own agenda.

    The community matters, and how that community evolves matters a great deal. Communities can live or die from massive migrations like this.


    Meta taking their ball and going home some time a ways down the road is much less an issue than them dominating content by being there in the first place. They will have their own moderation and content rules that will shape the content that flows out from them, which will shape each community that interacts with it. Considering the very mercenary approach they have to that, it means that content will be far more monetized and monetizable. Which means both sanitization and pandering, neither of which benefits freedom of thought and discussion.

    Considering the huge influx of people coming to places like Lemmy or Kbin to escape that kind of situation (reddit), it may mean the death of the community that has grown so far, before Meta even considers leaving.


    In addition to what you said, I think additional aspects to consider are the open standards and protocols Facebook/Meta have already abandoned once it became convenient to do so:

    • XMPP access for Messenger/Chat
    • RSS feeds for any newsfeed source. They even continued to use the RSS badge (which is unofficial as far as I’m aware) for their follow icon even after they removed RSS feeds.

    The bare minimum price of Meta’s integration into the Fediverse should be nothing less than the return of those standards, and honestly even that may not be enough.


    People are fearful then meta will retract it/ defederate and take the majority of content with it (EEE). This would effectively kill the fediverse.

    I don't see how that could possibly happen. It's not like they can buy the Fediverse. Seems to me far more likely that the Fediverse will be gain interest from people wishing to follow/interact with Meta users without being beholden to Meta and if/when Meta decouples from it again the Fediverse will be larger than before. Sure, some may come and go, but others will find interests outside of Meta.

    Like everyone is pointing out, they already will be the largest instance. They are not going to gain that much by trying to trying to absorb the rest of people who are likely in the Fediverse from dissatisfaction with Big Tech and wanting to break free from their algorithms and restrictions.

    @venia_sil@fedia.io avatar

    . It's not like they can buy the Fediverse.

    They don't need to. They only need to buy the admins. And we know that some admins have annouced they are for sale.


    In the Fediverse it's easier to escape that than it would in any other platform.

    1. while it will draw more users into the fediverse, nearly all of them will join directly with threads
    2. users who would have joined other instances will be parasited to threads as the safest best supported option
    3. whatever threads does, other instances will be forced to copy or risk losing feature parity with the most important player in the space.
    4. existing users will get accustomed to the content from threads as occupying the dominant super majority of content on the site.

    Threads will essentially be the space, with all currently existing communities left as periphery. Which is very bad on it’s own because the decentralized space is no longer decentralized, and in fact is in the hands of Meta.

    Meta will eventually wall itself off because not having control of your users social graph is an unnecessary threat. And since they are the space, so they will lose very little by walling off. When they do wall off, the fediverse will have it’s communities deeply intermingled with Meta, and when people lose most of their friends and content to meta walling themselves off - most are going to choose to relocate to meta.

    Slowly growing the decentralized space organically is important to avoid this kind of stuff. If we allow someone to become the hyper-dominant instance, the principle of de-federation ceases to matter because they have so much controlling leverage over the users.I do still think this is a good thing, but it’s a complicated good thing that could do more damage. I am very worried that they aren’t starting off federated. That also means their internal community norms will develop isolated from what fediverse has tried to establish.


    I am extremely skeptical of 2 and 3, because it means people who already decided to drop mainstream social media platforms will go back on their decision, and it suggests that people want instances to be more like Meta, rather than for it to function in a user driven way that provides things that Meta will never be willing to offer.

    If people can be tempted off of the Fediverse so easily, the problem is not Meta. Keep in mind that right now people are already choosing not to engage with Facebook. I'm not naive to assume that they won't have appeal and influence and dirty tricks. but seems to me like such a complete lack of faith in the Fediverse to assume that if Meta merely exists alongside the ecosystem, it's inevitable that everyone will jump ship. That sounds like what they wanted was a Big Tech-driven platform all along.

    I don't think that's right.

    Comes to mind also that Mastodon has had many years of headstart. How much of a slow growth does it still need?

    ZagTheRaccoon, (edited )

    Luckily, we’ll find out not too long from now. Hope you’re right.

    Kill_joy avatar

    I think you're underestimating evil.

    Competition is for losers.


    Nah, I know they are evil, but I also know that there are things people want that they will never provide because they want full control and an advertiser friendly environment.

    Like say, where would NSFW artists be more at ease? The Fediverse or an Instagram offshoot? Especially in the wake of Twitter falling apart.

    Let's also not overestimate the scheming of tech tycoons are either. I believe Meta is making a blunder and I don't think we should stop them.


    Let's also not overestimate the scheming of tech tycoons are either. I believe Meta is making a blunder and I don't think we should stop them.

    You shouldn't underestimate it either. Even if this isn't their intention now, it's something they could easily do whenever they feel like it, and do you really trust Meta to have that power?


    I don't think it's possible to take down decentralized social media unless it fails by itself, unless the ecosystem here is so completely unappealing people decide to get back to all the well known ills and dullness of Facebook.

    Even compared to XMPP, it's not the same. Chat programs are a communication tool. Social platforms are communities.

    I am not underestimating them, I don't know why this insistence that I must be. I think people are catastrophizing and spelling doom forgetting that we are seeing tech companies fucking up time after another, and also not giving enough credit to the advantages and potential that we have here.

    If you think all it takes is peeking over the fence and the Fediverse will fall apart, the maybe it could never be. But I think the interest in something different will only grow now. I believe we can take users out of Meta instead.


    Considering pornographic content isn't allowed on threads... not really much choice in that matter.


    That's my point though. There are things that will never find a home under Meta's umbrella, so it cannot just take it all over.

    RxBrad, in Rant: I hate the term “normie”.


    “Normie” shows a hint of self awareness that the people on this platform aren’t representative of the general public. We’re a bunch of tech weirdos.

    We’re the “abnormies”.


    I am a Fallout Ghoul


    Tbh, it mostly sounds condescending. Like "they are the normals, as opposed to us, we are the ones that see further than them" a lot of times.

    Though I did have seen things that are clearly self-aware, mostly the "NORMIES OUT REEEE"-stuff. But there is definitely both.


    I guess that’s something I didn’t consider. I kind of feel like that is still creating an us vs them mentality though…


    But that’s pretty much what a group of people is? The people who are inside the group and those that are outside. What is the problem with this?


    The problem isn't that that exists, it's when people decide that not being in the group is bad, and not just a casual state of being.


    No reasonable person is implying that.


    No reasonable person is implying that having different groups of people is a bad thing, either, and yet that's what DmMacniel was inferring others were saying.


    I didn’t imply that though? I simply stated that there is an inside of a group and an outside of a group. Also people can belong to several groups that may or may not overlap.

    It’s neither good nor bad up until people think it’s bad or good to be part of one specific group.


    This is absolutely not how you approaching communities. They literally said it creates an Us vs them mentality and you claim that as a positive? Groups are not about us vs them. At all. Nor is it how you build communities. That's how you create echo chambers and cliques and lead to your own downfall as a community.

    genoxidedev1 avatar

    The problem is that generalization exists.

    Every person that ever met or talked to a person that is part of the non-"normie" group does not want to associate with other people that might be in the same group. I've experienced it myself often enough even though I don't consider myself far gone like the people that talk to every "normie" in a condescending way, but they don't know it.

    I genuinely try to hide the fact that I have fun tinkering with my PC or programming because of that. Because I do not want people that are not tech affinitive to think 'I'm probably just a stuck-up asshole'.


    You just defined stereotyping and prejudice.

    DrNeurohax avatar

    No no no, it's stereotyping and prejudice when OTHER people do it to US. WE should tell THEM that THEY are US, and by saying this to OURSELVES we have said it to THEM, so that WE know that THEY know, but now THEY are a THEM again.

    YOU don't get it. WE get it. YOU should all be like US where there is no YOU and US, there is only the WE that is YOU and US, but thereis no YOU and US, there is only the WE that is YOU and US, but thereis no YOU and US, there is only the WE that is YOU and US, but thereis no YOU and US, there is only the WE that is YOU and US.

    Simple. See? You don't? But, YOU must because there is no...


    What? I'm assuming you are using your same failed understanding of another of my comments here. If you aren't going to actually point out what you think is wrong, but instead try to illustrate it with nonsensical statements, I can't honestly pinpoint where communication failed. Just try using basic logic next time if you feel so inclined to elucidate whatever point you're trying to make.

    DrNeurohax avatar

    Replied to above.


    Definitely elements of this resonate for me, but that’s why I think it’s just silly. They are a needless way of creating division where there doesn’t need to be.


    That’s your loss, man. Personally, I don’t feel the need to associate with people who are condescending towards my hobbies.

    @ttmrichter@lemmy.world avatar

    You missed to very key letters here. Here’s the original statement with the two key letters highlighted:

    […]creating an us →vs← them mentality though…

    Nobody that I’ve seen here has said that there is no “in” or “out” vis a vis the group. The objection is over those two key letters.


    I mean not get too far down that rabbit hole, but I would argue that we are all human beings first and we all belong to many different groups, not just one.

    And I think you’re missing my point.


    of course can groups overlap, and we are all humans but that doesn’t mean that group dynamics are a bad thing?


    These aren't actual group dynamics. In any way. Exclusion and "us vs them" is not a positive group dynamic. Do not promote it.

    DrNeurohax avatar

    So you're saying there are people who DO use "normies" and people that DON'T use "normies". These are not two groups of people. Shit, I just joined this thread, so that makes ME one of YOU, and there's OTHERS that aren't here. Are WE the elitists? Or are THEY the "normies"? YOU said there's no there's no US or THEM, so EVERYONE is talking in this thread. ANYONE not in this thread must not exist because I know I exist, so YOU thread posters must exist, but wait, that makes ME an US and YOU a THEM.

    (I'm not trying to be snarky, but this argument is exactly as nonsensical.)


    Buddy, are you ok? You can define "groups" by literally anything. The existence of a delineation is not "group dynamics." Group dynamics is not the existence of a categorizational model. Group dynamics is the interaction between two groups. And the phrase used was "us vs them" and I will point out that "vs" has a very specific meaning.

    What the fuck are you on about? You sound like someone on crack for their first time. I never said there was no us or them. I said there's no reason to have us vs them. I'm not sure what part of reading comprehension you failed at, but you need to improve it.

    DrNeurohax avatar

    My point is that this argument makes as much sense as what I wrote, so it's encouraging the you think it's ridiculous.

    "Versus" is a valueless delineation separating two subjects. There are two groups: The people of the Fediverse and the people not in the Fediverse. Neither one is good or bad, and in fact, many are a part of BOTH. That self awareness cancels any perceived negativity. We're all probably some level of "normie," and I've never heard someone use that word without immediate laughter by all parties. Sure, maybe in the early 00s by grade school punks, but I don't think anyone does or should care.

    The point you're actually making, without articulating it well, is the lack of terminology for federated groups. No one wants to say, "I'm a member of a select federated Lemmy and Kbin instances within the larger Fediverse." You want an affirmative set of terms, so that delineation can be made; you want to say, "The X have this, and the not(X) have that." From there you can get to value judgements, based on the expression of X, and I'll recognize your concerns. The ridiculousness of those terms not existing makes it VERY hard to claim intentional negativity/harm because it simultaneously draws attention that group X in this case doesn't have their shit together enough to come up with a nickname or shorthand.

    "You're better than us? What are you?"
    "Well, you see, I'm a part of a federated network of...."
    (Looks up - everyone left)

    So, until someone comes up with some non-super-cringe terms for this wonderful mess, the discussion is a waste of everyone's time. And until then, I suggest taking it on a case by case basis. If someone is offended, tell them that's not intended because we don't have OUR shit together, ask them what they prefer, and use that term around them.


    This was a bunch of nonsense. It was entirely tangental and didn't actually mean anything. You literally mention two groups that are mutually exclusive by definition and say some folks are part of both. Moreover, you made your own definition for what "versus" means and ignored what actually defines a group that isn't an identity. There's no identity in a group defined like you're talking about.

    You're actually making even less sense than before. It's like the more words you use, the less sense you make. You should try being succinct and see if that helps you communicate better.

    sab avatar

    There's a hint of elitism to it though, at least as it's commonly used.

    I saw a comment the other day that referred to Instagram users as "people you wouldn't want to associate yourself with". I don't know who these people think normal people are.


    They probably don't want to associate with "normal" people because they revel in their "weird" status.

    Which, honestly, is kind of understandable and relatable. People are often mocked and reviled for sticking out, for being different. It makes a sad sort of sense that they'd lash out at those that represent that "normalness" that they're told they'll never achieve.

    I certainly don't think it's healthy in the long term, but I can at least fathom the logic that got them there.


    I think it is more self-deprecation than elitism as (in my image) normies tend to have more friends and healier relationship and hobbies.


    I always hated the stereotype that Reddit was full of nothing but loser virgins trapped in their mom’s basement who had no friends and no chance of a fulfilling life.

    I mean, sure there are a lot of people there (and here) that probably fit most, if not all of that stereotype, but the constant need to point out what losers we all are is problematic in so many ways. Namely that some of us do actually have friends, hobbies, and lives, but still can relate to the overall vibe of being a bit of a weirdo or a loner or whatever, but also it has a tendency to create this barrel of crabs type mental barrier where it just feels like the constant reminders of “if this is all I am, this is all I will ever be” keeps presenting itself. It’s tiring and is the reason why I always kept all the self-insulting subs like me_irl on my block list.

    @Kolanaki@yiffit.net avatar

    Many of us are also not nuerotypical. Another word for typical is normal.


    Many is not all. And by creating an us vs them mentality where I’m “us” for the most part, but not for the whole part, there’s situations where the need to choose is being presented. It’s gatekeeping for the sake of gatekeeping, and really isn’t part of a healthy community of people.


    Pretending there isn't any condescension toward the "normies" when using the term is blatantly exhibiting the exact behavior the OP referenced. It's not how inclusivity works in a community at all. It alienates anyone that isn't already a part of it.


    Why? Because I don’t expect a person who’s not entrenched in a specific hobby to understand the ins-and-outs of that hobby?

    It’s not condescension. It’s setting reasonable expectations.


    No of course it’s reasonable that they wouldn’t understand the ins and outs. The op and commenter you’re replying to are talking about the connotation of the word, not the fact that a hobbyist understands their hobby.

    Take the term Trekkie for example – people who are into star trek can become Trekkies which symbolizes that they’ve joined a community. That term can be used to mean that two people both belong to a community (i.e., “we’re Trekkies”) or it can be used to refer negatively to people in that community by those who aren’t in it (i.e., “Trekkies smell bad”).

    There are (at least) two things happening here that people are picking up on. One is that context matters, and the way that the term normie is often used is not a positive one. I’ve personally never seen anyone refer to themself proudly as a normie, have you? And the other is that we’re referring to normies, a group we ostensibly don’t belong to, as a homogeneous blob which is obviously not accurate.

    I doubt anyone’s feelings are especially hurt if they’re called a normie, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a dismissive and usually negatively valenced term used to refer to a massive and diverse group of people.


    To me, normie just signifies a person outside a given niche hobby.

    I’m into having a Plex server in my basement. People not into that are normies in a conversation about having a Plex server. I don’t expect them to know how to setup QuickSync hardware encoding in a Plex Docker container.

    I don’t like anime. To people who like anime, I’m the normie. I think Trunks is just a really cool Mastodon client. I only vaguely know it’s also a Dragonball character. If you expect me to know more than this, you’re going to be disappointed.

    There’s no judgment involved.


    I agree the way you’re using it doesn’t sound negative. But I don’t think that’s a representative use of this term. Take a look at the top few entries on urban dictionary, they don’t seem very judgement free to me…


    The point of this post is that even if you don’t mean it in the way that urban dictionary describes it, that’s how some people will interpret it.


    I mean, read even just half the comments on just one page of comments here and you should see that it's extremely common to not use the word in the manner you're stating. We're not talking about that nor is the poster.


    My perception in the early days of reddit was that the majority of users were also tech weirdos. So there’s that…

    SamC, in Mastodon's Founder & CEO Gives His Thoughts on Meta's Threads

    I think E/E/E is still a risk. If some “high follower” type people start joining Threads, and people on Mastodon start following them and making that content a big part of their feed, those people are not going to be happy if Threads accounts suddenly disappear because Meta make arbitrary, incompatible changes.

    Hopefully it won’t actually extinguish Mastodon/the Fediverse, but it can still do damage.

    RandomStickman avatar

    Yeah, I don't find his answer on E/E/E comforting. However if nothing changes hopefully the niche that's already on Mastodon and kbin/Lemmy could survive regardless of Threads as I'm fairly happy with the state it is right now.

    takeda, (edited )

    Google effectively killed XMPP this way. During the time the federation was working the protocol essentially stood still, because they were afraid of breaking GTalk. Once GTalk gained enough momentum Google just pulled the plug.


    zalack avatar

    The thing is that this can happen even without active malice.

    If the product owners or engineers decide "hey, we want to add this cool feature, but it's not supported by activity pub" the path of least resistance -- bypassing the long process of changing the activity pub spec and getting everyone else on board -- can be super tempting, and come from a place of wanting to make your product better.

    Those ostensibly good intentions can lead to E/E/E without actively meaning to.

    danhakimi avatar

    You could argue that this is what happened to Jabber.

    Although Facebook Messenger never made a good faith attempt to interoperate with Jabber in the first place.


    It was Google's GTalk not Facebook's Messenger.

    Facebook never needed Jabber for their messenger.

    danhakimi avatar

    It was both, but Facebook Messenger was less widely known and was kind of janky. here's a source that explains part of what was going on.



    Ah I see, so they never federated with XMPP. This would be comparable if they would take Mastodon server and build Threads from it, but never connected it to the Fediverse.

    GTalk used Jabber to help bootstrap their I'm then stole part of Jabber's user base.

    wagesj45 avatar

    I think the people that value being on a decentralized service will stay on a decentralized server. The people that would abandon one platform to follow their favorite "high follower" poster are normies that never cared about what service they were using to begin with. Meta may absolutely take a large share of users to their platform in the future if they shut off federation and our favorite celebrities and shitposters are no longer visible. But I don't really see how that is any different than Twitter currently having all the celebrities and high volume shitposters. We already can't see them. The EEE argument just strikes me as sour grapes that "their" users are going somewhere else. And I'm on the fediverse (both Mastodon and kbin) so I see the value here. But I'm not going to get angry that normies don't want to put the effort into learning this ecosystem when they have their own lives and struggles and a limited number of social causes to care about.

    Now what does bother me is Meta having an outsized influence on the development of the protocol of ActivityPub. We've seen something similar to this with Google using Chrome to push some additions to how browsers handle HTML standards/elements, like supporting DRM.


    All I can say is that, I started using Jabber before GTalk federation, but ultimately Google made me leave Jabber.

    What actually happened is that some friends who originally were on Jabber switched to GTalk, because later Google added it to Gmail, making it more convenient.

    So essentially when they defederated, my network was pretty empty.

    wagesj45 avatar

    Why didn't your friends return to Jabber once GTalk locked them out?


    Because thats not how human nature works. Convenience tramps everything and almost noone is as ideologically driven as they think they are.

    wagesj45 avatar

    Then the only real solution is to disallow big companies from making convenient products. At some point the onus has to be put on the average user. Throwing your hands up and saying "the normies are too stupid to consider their own self interest" may be true but it is also an unsolvable problem if they choose to never put any thought into their own lives and problems.


    My point is that we shouldnt enable those big companies even more than they currently are. We shouldnt let them into our own garden. This is a lemmy.world thread, i didnt even know that, i am using kbin. Tomorrow, this might have been a threads thread and i might have not even noticed it. But if for x, y, w reasons, kbin defederates from threads one day, i will notice that most of my feed will have 0 content all of a sudden.

    Taking stuff away is a very powerful motivator. We will end fighting human nature. While if we never federate with threads and naturally grow the rest of the fediverse, this wont happen. It's easier to grow a garden amongst other gardens than to grow it next to a skyscraper.

    wagesj45 avatar

    If this is how it will play out, then we're already doomed. Meta will throw money at the platform until everyone you want to follow is there, which will leech fediverse users until there are only the hardcore users left.

    lagomorphlecture, (edited )

    The solution to that, which I would fully support, would be for kbin, lemmyworld, etc to deferate from threads from the beginning. You can’t lose something you never had and personally, I don’t want to interact with a meta owned product so the prospect of what you just described bothers me. If lemmyworld doesn’t defederate from them I would 100% move to another instance that does.

    Edit: So there is actually a pact for instances to sign pledging to block meta and I don’t see lemmy.world on it. That said, it’s a long list and it’s manually updated so I may have just missed it. fedipact.online


    Because GTalk integrated with Gmail and with ability to still having access to other friends was much more convenient and they didn't care about who owns their favorite instant messaging network. And majority of their friends were also on Google.

    The truth is that only purists will stay, and most people (even tech people) don't give damn about being locked out.

    Google also broke things in a subtle way. You could see the person is online, if they messaged you you would get their message, if you messaged them, your message would show as delivered, but never get to them.

    So first thing you thought that maybe they are just busy. When you started suspecting something is not right then it made you think that maybe there's an issue with Jabber etc

    I don't think the defederation was ever announced, it was more like a bug that was never fixed.


    The people that would abandon one platform to follow their favorite "high follower" poster are normies that never cared about what service they were using to begin with

    Thats now how things work. Let's say that now you are following people from fediverse. Those people are motivated to post things, because someone needs to, because they want to grow the community, etc. Meta joins, then meta people post a trillion things(because they are a trillion people, some of which might even be paid by meta). Those initial fediverse people no longer post things because "they have already been posted".

    Then you defederate meta. Congratulations, now you have 0 content and 0 content submitters. You will start to start from the beginning, from an even worse point than we are atm. You are now dead.

    Very few people are as ideologically driven as they think they are. Ultimately it is about quality of life. And maybe you can tolerate some junk because of your ideology but everyone has their limit. Content is king, not only for the "normies" but for everyone. What is the point of a fediverse that has nothing to interact with and noone to interact with you?

    wagesj45 avatar

    Then the fediverse was only a temporary stopgap until Meta (or any other corporation) made a better product than Twitter. It was doomed from the start.


    Big companies can do whatever they want. But we are enabling them to do it easier if we federate with them. When i joined reddit 15? years ago, it wasnt that dissimilar to the fediverse. Of course it is even harder now to replicate the thunder in a bottle that reddit was and to scale but still.

    wagesj45 avatar

    The culture may have been similar to fediverse culture, but the underlying structure was nowhere near similar. It was just as much a private site run by (benevolent) dictators.