• fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        I still stand by that defederation as the only line of defense is a losing strategy. Keeping users siloed in Facebook’s garden shouldn’t be seen as a win for us.

        • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          72
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Keeping users siloed in Facebook’s garden shouldn’t be seen as a win for us.

          Sometimes the only winning move is not to play. If people hadn’t federated with google’s XMPP back in the day, google wouldn’t have had the same level of control it had to kill XMPP as a competitor.

          We need to learn from the lessons of the past, and the past has resulted in the deaths of services when federating with corporations.

          • Fox Trenton@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            “We should debate them… And defeat them on the Marketplace of Ideas.” Yeah, right.

            • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I never said defeating them or out competing them should be the goal. The goal should be the survival of services. And corporations will kill these services.

          • Flaky@iusearchlinux.fyi
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            19
            ·
            1 year ago

            Hate to burst your bubble, but no-one was actually using XMPP with Google Talk except for open-source tech nerds.

            • Alsephina@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              16
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              And google stopped any chances of that ever happening. The Fediverse should just let itself grow gradually and naturally, as should have XMPP

                • poVoq@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  They piggy backed on rapidly growing XMPP and then became lazy with keeping compatible with the rest of the xmpp federation and at some point the s2s connection stopped being feasible as they never implemented TLS for it, and did’t really care as most xmpp users were on their server anyways and thus did’t use the s2s connection.

                  Its not a typical nefarious EEE story, but it did a lot of damage to the xmpp federation anyways.

            • poVoq@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              This predates Google Talk and is rather about the XMPP Gmail integration. Back then XMPP was the hot topic in tech circles (Twitter was even prototyped to be XMPP based) and people were switching to it and recommending it to others to replace ICQ/MSN/AIM etc. However, often they recommended others to use the Google XMPP service as back then Google was still naively seen as the “Do no evil” good guy, having just started up recently and giving away free things like previously unheared off 1GB of email storage etc.

              So the situation is not quite comparable to AP and Facebook (and XMPP is far from dead), but it is still possible to draw some lessons from it.

        • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What is your definition of win? Market share? Are you thinking in capitalist terms?

          Nobody is forcing those people to use Facebook, and they are welcome to come here whenever they like.

          • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The most free people. Best for society. Etc.

            |They’re welcome to come here whenever they like .

            Only if they know it exists and can still connect with the people and communities they care about. This is what the federated approach was supposed to fix, the silos, the community capture.

            • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              We know what Meta is, and we know our history, so we know Meta’s goal is to destroy the fediverse. Federating with Meta is not likely to yield your desired outcomes.

      • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        This conversation will be off the record.

        Ahaha, fuck no. If someone did go, please spill that tea.

    • Corgana@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Can you explain what that means in this context? How does defederating Threads prevent Meta from extinguishing anything?

      • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago
        • Embrace: Join the fediverse with your existing user base that dwarfs the fediverse’s existing user base, and with infinitely more money.
        • Extend: Use your size, in terms of users and capital, to steer the direction of the ActivityPub fediverse standard to your advantage and your competitors’ disadvantage. You see everyone else as a competitor because you are a corporation seeking to monopolize the user base for profit.
        • Extinguish: See what Google did to XMPP for a concrete example.
          • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            25
            ·
            1 year ago

            For those unaware of Google’s latest web browser malarkey: Web Environment Integrity

            EFF/Cory Doctorow/Jacob Hoffman-Andrews: Your Computer Should Say What You Tell It To Say

            Google is adding code to Chrome that will send tamper-proof information about your operating system and other software, and share it with websites. Google says this will reduce ad fraud. In practice, it reduces your control over your own computer, and is likely to mean that some websites will block access for everyone who’s not using an “approved” operating system and browser. It also raises the barrier to entry for new browsers, something Google employees acknowledged in an unofficial explainer for the new feature, Web Environment Integrity (WEI).

            • TheFriendlyArtificer@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I genuinely want Gopher back.

              I want to share information and to communicate. I don’t want every bowel movement tracked and monetizes. I don’t want 30 cross site requests when going to a news site. A single story should not require 10MB of JavaScript libraries.

              I have no doubt that most of the authors of the original internet are aghast at what their high-minded creation has itself created.

            • Corgana@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              That’s a common misconception actually, any and all data available via federation is already public and easily scrapable even without running an instance of one’s own. Defederating only hides (in this case) Threads content from users on the instance doing the defederating, but the data is still public. Not to mention copies of it would still be fully available on any extant federated instances.

              • Gestrid@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                But they would still be unable to embrace (and, by extension, extend and extinguish) because users from Threads would be unable to interact with users from other instances. Basically, they’d be unable to get rid of a potential competitor using the EEE method.

                • Corgana@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  But how could interoperability lead to extinguishing? That’s the part I don’t understand. By what means could Threads “extinguish” the network of instances that stay federated?

                  • averyminya@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It seems the idea is that it gets so big that it either can’t exist without it or leeches the userbase. I’ve not really seen any explanation either, but I’ve come up with an idea around it. For example, in my experience Lemmy.World is filled with the type of people who would use Threads (from responses I’ve gotten about corporations like Spotify and Apple - heavily praised and no negativity about them). As threads and .world users interact, over time there becomes a dependency between those instances due to the community connections that are made. At a certain point, one or the other does something to encourage usage - that would be Extending.

                    For how long would something like activitypub be able to hold out? If Meta begins making contributions to it? Or if after that dependency, Meta makes a chance to how their federation works internally and fractures the point of activitypub by making instance runners/users pick one or the other. Or worse, Meta flat out buys Automatic. There goes the Fediverse.

                    FWIW - I’m not informed or have any idea what I’m talking about in this regard. I’m fully guessing and postulating, I don’t even think I’m parroting what I’ve read somebody else say about it because, like I said, I’ve yet to see an explanation how the extinguish would function in this example. Historically I have an idea, but the circumstances here are different, ish.

                    But, this is Meta we’re talking about. I don’t think we’d be any happier federating with Reddit if the opportunity arose because these companies have historically shown they will pull teeth to get what they want, no matter how many people’s teeth they have to pull.

                    “Well can they?”

                    I don’t know. Maybe not? Do you want to let them try? Why let them? By defederating, it’s like having a glass wall where yes, they can see everything looking in, but the interaction is mitigated. Ifnthe example I brought up is accurate, any changes .World decided to make with Meta in mind would not affect the rest of the instances that have defederated, since we don’t even see that stuff from them in the first place.

                    Comparatively, slrpnk.net currently is federated with .World but not Threads, so if .World makes changes, those may be seen from instances that are federated with it?

                    From my understanding, a specific post on .World that has interaction from Threads and slrpnk.net. Threads and .World would see everything while Slrpnk.Net would only see federated instances and .World comments.

                    We are about 1.5m here in the Fediverse. Threads is already 100m. That’s quite a large number of things to be missing, so it’s possible that there’s a large number of conversations that defederated users are only seeing half of? That could be another example that pushes Extinguish.

                    Anyway, sorry for any confusion or nonsense - I wrote this in a hurry on my phone, but I also wanted to lay out my thoughts and understand to see if it’s at all in the ballpark. Shit, just use me as Cunningham’s Law.

                  • Bloops@lemmygrad.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Here’s one way it could happen

                    1. Facebook joins the Fediverse, becoming the largest instance
                    2. Majority of Fediverse embraces this
                    3. Facebook decides to deviate slightly from ActivityPub
                    4. Not wanting to be disconnected, majority of Fediverse follows them
                    5. The real, ActivityPub-based Fediverse is dead (or as small as it was when it started) and now Facebook controls its (former) instances
          • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The same way we prevented any of that up ’till now: by doing our own thing on our own terms.

      • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It prevents that specific strategy that would culminate in extinguishing. The idea being to siphon users away from other platforms, then add features that other platforms won’t or can’t implement, and use that to create an image of their own platform being better, having more features. If they succeed at having a lot of users oblivious to what’s happening, they will use those features, and when they don’t work for people on other platforms, they will blame the other platforms instead of their own, further cultivating the image that other platforms are broken/unreliable. In the end, they leave other platforms unable to compete, forcing users to either have a “broken”/incomplete experience, or migrate to their platforms. (Or leave the fediverse entirely). Or they can simply stop federating at that point, after users have left for their platform, cutting off the rest of the fediverse from content hosted on their platform.

        The way defederating prevents a strategy like that is by cutting them off before they can get a foothold - they can’t make users feel left out if they don’t get to influence their experience in the first place.