10 ms·

FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

39 points by 8organicbits 3y ago

web3-is-a-scam 3y ago
Blocking one of the biggest on-ramps will surely work wonders for adoption.
- rcme 3y ago
  Maybe adoption isn’t the goal. Just a thought…
  - cpill 3y ago
    of course it is.
    - NegativeK 3y ago
      There's no reason federated social media has to adopt the exponential growth or die mentality. Some federated bubbles will want to, but plenty of others won't. And they can continue on just fine.
      - Nextgrid 3y ago
        > Some federated bubbles will want to, but plenty of others won't. And this is exactly why the current idea of "fediverse" was not only dead on arrival but is just as dead 7 years down the (counting from Mastodon's release date which is the most popular implementation). People just want to communicate, they don't know nor care about the technical details. They know that if they ask the person they just met at the bar for their Instagram they will find them on Instagram. Same deal for Twitter, Snapchat & TikTok. For the fediverse however, the water gets murkier and the outcome isn't guaranteed because of the above (and many other technical details). (the only guaranteed outcome is that nobody is going to embarrass themselves mentioning "Mastodon" outside of a tech conference) If you need other reasons why I consider Mastodon and the current implementation of "fediverse" DOA, see my previous posts: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=“Nextgrid”%20“mastodon&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
        LexiMax 3y ago
        Yikes. I was half expecting you to end that last sentence with a contemptuous "NERRRRRRRRRDS!!!"
        Nextgrid 3y ago
        The fact that the fediverse crowd see nothing wrong with naming a social network "Mastodon" implies "NERRRDS" without having to even mention it. Btw, I say this as a nerd & tech guy that hates ad-supported social media and wishes for a better alternative, but the current iteration "fediverse" is not it, for many different reasons besides branding which I've written about previously: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=“Nextgrid”%20“mastodon&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
        LexiMax 3y ago
        > The fact that the fediverse crowd see nothing wrong with naming a social network "Mastodon" implies "NERRRDS" without having to even mention it. I don't think Mastodon even makes the top 25 of most cringeworthy social media parlance when "tweet" continues to be the reigning champion since 2006.
    - SamWhited 3y ago
      It's not. In so far as you can assign a "goal" to a network as diverse as the fediverse, many services (maybe most?) started out as a way to specifically get away from the growth mindset of giant corporations. The fediverse was initially popularized among the queer and trans communities as a way to remain safe from giant platforms that do a bad job moderating where they would be harassed all day. These are the people who made the fediverse what it is, and they could not have done the same on a giant billion-user platform like Facebook. Somewhere smaller and more intimate is easier to moderate, and keeps people safer. The point isn't rapid growth, or adoption, it's organic growth that doesn't outpace our ability to keep our users safe.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - drdaeman 3y ago
    Adoption as in numbers to please some department or board (or even a lone server owner) probably isn't. Not in general. Adoption as in getting more and more interesting people posting and talking? Probably yes, because if it's not then I suppose I don't get what the heck this could be all about.
    - rcme 3y ago
      Think about a physical community, perhaps the area where you live. Do you really want the population of your neighborhood to 10x? Population size changes the characteristics of a place. Sometimes, you’re content with the way things are.
      - drdaeman 3y ago
        If not for the physical space constraints (crowded streets) - I suppose I do. More folks around means more opportunities, more diversity. Even if I won't interact with 99.9% of them, why would I be against a possibility that they'll bring something more I might like to the table? I mean, unlike in physical world, no one can shove anything up my face unless I'm specifically in a mood to see what else is out there. The beauty of distributed digital landscapes (as opposed to corporate-ran walled gardens) is that you're in more control of how it works and what you see. When there's no central hub, there is no land to fight for - I don't have to see the giant concrete anthills of dense cities, the space I see is configured to my preferences. And of course I would like to have more options of what to read and whom to talk to, than less. Even though I'm unlikely to consume any of this Instagram content (it's just not my thing). So, I don't quite get this "barbarians at the gate!" thing. But then I don't get the idea of Fediverse servers as some sort of communities either - to me having a shared server is just an unfortunate consequence of technical limitations making it's highly impractical a true distributed system. I really don't want to care what server something or someone is on.
- nobody9999 3y ago
  >Blocking one of the biggest on-ramps will surely work wonders for adoption. I'm not clear on what, exactly, Meta's AP offering might be (is it a separate user base from their other products, or an integration into them?) or how it will interact with other fediverse instances (FB/Insta users can follow users in the Fediverse without Meta enabling the reverse?). If, on the other hand, there's full, two-way federation with Meta's services, that could be a huge boon to the fediverse, as it would share their "network effect" with a bunch of other players. Which, I guess, is possible. But given Meta's track record of the lengths that they'll go to in pursuit of growth and profit, I'd be shocked if they actually did so. As such, it doesn't surprise me that the fediverse is suspicious and skeptical of Meta's entrance.
  - TrueDuality 3y ago
    Just a guess but I think they're going to do a full two-way federation with injected ad content. This could be very sneaky in how it works with the existing fediverse protocols. You really only have the power to block an instance or a user. What if each ad has its own user ID and is returned inline with any remote query for content? What if they take it a step further and inject ads using desired user's own IDs to show them when you follow your grandmother's content who would be very difficult to move off of FB? As a fediverse host you can probably make custom spam like filters, and I'm sure there will be some distributed tools to fight this kind of thing... But right now a lot of the fediverse is assuming that moderation of external hosts is pretty straight forward and not actively adversarial. If you disagree with the policies or the populace that is attracted to a particular instance block the instance. That doesn't work with something at this scale. I don't agree with instances proactively blocking Meta before they've shown their true colors, but I also don't think they're wrong. I just think we should let the monsters take off their mask and allow the social consequences to come when the blocks happen for a good reason.
    - nobody9999 3y ago
      >If you disagree with the policies or the populace that is attracted to a particular instance block the instance. That doesn't work with something at this scale. Ummm...Isn't that what TFA is all about? Blocking bad actor instances? Or are you asserting that "What if each ad has its own user ID and is returned inline with any remote query for content? What if they take it a step further and inject ads using desired user's own IDs to show them when you follow your grandmother's content who would be very difficult to move off FB?" are the actions of a good citizen of the Fediverse? I'd say those would be the actions of a profoundly bad actor who shouldn't be allowed to interact with my fediverse instance. >If you disagree with the policies or the populace that is attracted to a particular instance block the instance. That doesn't work with something at this scale. I'm not sure why you don't think blocking would be workable. You can block hosts and entire IP ranges in admin UIs for AP instances, or you can just block all of Meta's AS'[0] at the network level. How is that unworkable? >I don't agree with instances proactively blocking Meta before they've shown their true colors, but I also don't think they're wrong. I just think we should let the monsters take off their mask and allow the social consequences to come when the blocks happen for a good reason. I don't necessarily disagree, but given Meta's past disrespect for their product (that'd be you, by the way), it's not surprising that many folks don't want anything to do with them -- before or after they show their true colors. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_system_%28Internet%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_system_%28Internet%...
cyanydeez 3y ago
Yeah, f your tech is meant to "federate" the internet, being a block on the larger old guard isn't the way to go, unless your tech really ain't much.
- LexiMax 3y ago
  If the end state of the fediverse is the same incumbent social networks running the federated social media sphere just like they run their walled gardens, what would've been the point of the entire exercise? Meta already has their social networks. The fediverse doesn't need them, and I don't see why they "need" the fediverse either - unless their plan is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
  - hughesjj 3y ago
    So it'll just be a new set of walled gardens with no history we can evaluate? How is that better?
    - LexiMax 3y ago
      You and I must be working with different definitions of "Walled Garden." I can connect to multiple places on the fediverse with a single app. The app also works pretty consistently between servers and doesn't go out of its way to drive engagement with dark patterns or serve me ads.
  - cyanydeez 3y ago
    But your argument, as we've seen, only means resetting the enshittiffication clock. The next level tech would prevent the type of preferential monopoly.
COGlory 3y ago
Hmm, think I will #FefiBlock MOULE instead, they seem obnoxious and annoying.
dleslie 3y ago
Ah yes, let's punish and ostracize one of the largest silos for their attempts to be open to federation. Why, exactly?
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Because their motives are suspect?
  - cpill 3y ago
    there motives are...?
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Embrace, extend, extinguish. Like they did with news organizations already. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pivot_to_video https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pivot_to_video)
      - zer0zzz 3y ago
        EEE AKA FUD
    - api 3y ago
      Surveillance, spam (advertising), algorithmic timelines (prioritizing toxicity because it maximizes engagement), and embrace-extend-extinguish.
  - fmajid 3y ago
    Their motives are probably compliance with the interoperability provisions of the European Union’s upcoming Digital Markets Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/04/eu-digital-markets-acts-interoperability-rule-addresses-important-need-raises https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/04/eu-digital-markets-act... Since that’s a legal requirement, it’s not something they can yank in the future.
LexiMax 3y ago
I don't really see what good can come from an entrenched social media company responsible for walled garden communities trying to enter the fediverse. The whole point of federation is to _avoid_ those single points of failure. Besides, if I wanted to see posts from Facebook or Instagram users, I know where to find them.
- jeena 3y ago
  Exactly my thinking too. They could have their API like it was in the beginning where you could post things and read things and we could then create some translation layer for those people who really want to read their grandmas posts in their Mastodon app.
rvz 3y ago
Fediverse: We want adoption in the Fediverse. Meta: Sure. Let's get 2B into the Fediverse with Instagram Threads. Fediverse: No! Not that sort of adoption! Block Meta from the Fediverse now! As expected and predicted in [0]: 'Instagram's success on ActivityPub is also Mastodon's nightmare and it tends to more centralization.' Looks like Threads is going to be the biggest Mastodon-compatible network on the Fediverse and the other admins of larger instances who signed those NDAs won't block them anyway, with the smaller ones making themselves irrelevant if they do. Meta once again is winning. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36012434 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36012434
- SamWhited 3y ago
  You're right, we don't want that sort of adoption! We want slow, paced, organic growth. Users should join the fediverse because they want to be there, not because a giant corporation cut their accounts over to a new service that supports some random thing they've never heard of and don't understand. The culture clash that will result from Facebooks decision could be devastating, so naturally people are pushing back against that kind of adoption. > with the smaller ones making themselves irrelevant if they do I don't think this is true. The fediverse started out as a way to specifically have small services where users (mostly trans and queer users early on) wouldn't be harassed all day. "Irrelevant" only makes sense if you're thinking from the perspective of "get as many users as possible", but the fediverse isn't really about that. Small servers of marginalized people talking in private spaces where no one is harassing them is still extremely relevant.
- nobody9999 3y ago
  >...with the smaller ones making themselves irrelevant if they do. Irrelevant to who and/or what? I'd expect that most instances aren't interested in the stuff going on over on Meta's services, most likely because they're on the fediverse to get away from them. What's more, not every site wants to monetize their users or maximize engagement. Rather, they aim to be a community. If your[0] goal is to "increase your reach" to improve your economic prospects, then small instances will likely be irrelevant -- to you. If that's your goal, I don't want you on my AP instance anyway. There's way too much of that elsewhere. [0] That's a general "you," not rvz specifically.
SamWhited 3y ago
Excellent. There may be other solutions too, but I haven't heard or thought of any. There are two reasons why this is a good thing, I think: The fediverse is about creating a more decentralized internet. Facebook is about centralizing as much of the internet on its servers and sucking up as much data as possible. These things simply aren't compatible. We've seen over, and over again what happens when you allow big tech companies into your open standards. Whether it was Google destroying the XMPP network, or Microsoft deliberately trying to cripple Open Office, we know how this will end. Facebook may play nice for a day or two, but one day some product manager will decide they have most of the users, so why play nice? They'll introduce a new (proprietary) feature to try and get their users to complain to their friends that messages aren't as cool when they're not on Facebook, suck up most of the users, then defederate. Or they'll just refuse to follow the standard properly because they know best (ala Google refusing to implement TLS for server to server connections with XMPP, making many smaller servers choose to defederate for their users safety). Also, we've seen how bad their behavior can be in terms of moderation, being party to genocide, allowing nazis, etc. so why would we allow them to bring all that too our users? Blocking entire servers until they change their behavior, or permanently if they refuse to, has been an extremely effective moderation solution that has kept the fediverse safe. This only works if server sizes stay relatively small (where the crossover point is, I don't know, but I know facebook is way beyond it).
MBCook 3y ago
We’re open to everyone! No not like that! A person going by Bloonface (https://mastodon.social/@Bloonface/110605013435138542# https://mastodon.social/@Bloonface/110605013435138542#.) put it perfectly. People complain more people should dump centralization and move to Mastodon, but every time they try they get shouted at for doing it wrong. Posting too much. Using hashtags. Not using hashtags. Not adding alt descriptions. Not using content warnings. Using content warnings. Using them, but for the wrong thing. Joining the big servers. Joining the bad servers. Talking about Twitter. Not calling it ‘the bird site’. Not being pro-(whatever) enough. Demanding people do any of the above. A number of people I like went to Mastodon, I enjoy I can keep reading their stuff. And I get the problems with Bluesky. But boy do I wish I had an invite, it sounds so much less contentious and more fun.
- jacooper 3y ago
  They are trying to protect the fediverse from Facebook Embrace, extend, extinguish them.
  - MBCook 3y ago
    Why? FB doesn’t need to. They’re what, tens of thousands of times bigger? And there is nothing stopping servers from defederating at the drop of a hat. We already know that, it happens constantly for some reason.
- LexiMax 3y ago
  > People complain more people should dump centralization and move to Mastodon, but every time they try they get shouted at for doing it wrong. It seems 100% reasonable to suspect the motives of a company with two massive walled-garden social networks under their belt. The fediverse doesn't need them, and there's no obvious upside of federation for them. Besides, on my list of issues with Facebook and Instagram, "not being accessible from the wider internet" isn't even on my top 10. If I wanted to read posts from those networks, I know where to find them.
  - cmdli 3y ago
zer0zzz 3y ago
When admins decide to outright block entire domains based on some contrived bias with no input from users (ie user setting to block meta or whatever fediblock says) that pretty much kills the utility and purpose for having a federated network. This is like if some mail host decided to block all mail from gmail domains.
- tourmalinetaco 3y ago
  Actually, that’s rather par for the course for a federated network. Don’t like it? Make your own fediverse node. That’s literally the entire point.
  - zer0zzz 3y ago
    Wow so it’s both awful to use and separated into fragmented bubbles. What a great product.
  - diggernet 3y ago
    It is par for the course, and it is also the thing that'll keep federated networks from succeeding. Look, I don't like or trust Facebook. But how many customers would Fastmail have if they defederated from Gmail? For that matter, how much would Gmail have grown if they had decided not to federate with Hotmail and Yahoo? If people can't use your service to talk to or follow friends & family on other services, they'll just use the services their friends & family use. Sure, they could use both, but why bother? The one that isn't huge has little or nothing to offer them. I'm all for letting users of federated networks set up their own personal blocks of users, nodes, entire services, whatever. But when admins defederate, it blocks all good communication, too. And turns the federated network into an unfederated non-network. > Don’t like it? Make your own fediverse node. Sure. And when you do set up your own fediverse node with the intent of actually staying federated, you will quickly find yourself with a de-fediverse node, as admins punish you for daring to let your computer talk to the computer of someone they don't like. Edit: To be more clear, I am NOT saying that fediverse nodes want or need to be huge like Gmail or Facebook. I'm saying that convincing people to escape the walled garden into the fediverse is mostly not gonna be possible without a demonstrated commitment to keeping the network connected. It'd be like trying to convince someone to set up their own email server, when nobody they know will ever see their emails because Gmail dumps it all into the spam bucket. What Gmail has done to the idea of a personal email server, the fediverse is doing to itself, self-inflicted.
jacooper 3y ago
Bit off topic, but what was the point of the Meta rename? Literally almost all of their internal domains are still Facebook, and now they dumped the mertaverse and switched to AI, just call it Facebook!
tyrust 3y ago
Why was this flagged?
- tourmalinetaco 3y ago
  Because apparently there is a non-zero population of Facebook-apologists on HN.
danradunchev 3y ago
Just give all of them a finger. Don't allow anyone to commercially profit from your content without your consent. Using Nginx to block Meta, Twitter and ChatGPT access to your sites - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36476243 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36476243

39 points by 8organicbits 3y ago

web3-is-a-scam 3y ago

Blocking one of the biggest on-ramps will surely work wonders for adoption.

rcme 3y ago
Maybe adoption isn’t the goal. Just a thought…
- cpill 3y ago
  of course it is.
  - NegativeK 3y ago
    There's no reason federated social media has to adopt the exponential growth or die mentality. Some federated bubbles will want to, but plenty of others won't. And they can continue on just fine.
    - Nextgrid 3y ago
      > Some federated bubbles will want to, but plenty of others won't. And this is exactly why the current idea of "fediverse" was not only dead on arrival but is just as dead 7 years down the (counting from Mastodon's release date which is the most popular implementation). People just want to communicate, they don't know nor care about the technical details. They know that if they ask the person they just met at the bar for their Instagram they will find them on Instagram. Same deal for Twitter, Snapchat & TikTok. For the fediverse however, the water gets murkier and the outcome isn't guaranteed because of the above (and many other technical details). (the only guaranteed outcome is that nobody is going to embarrass themselves mentioning "Mastodon" outside of a tech conference) If you need other reasons why I consider Mastodon and the current implementation of "fediverse" DOA, see my previous posts: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=“Nextgrid”%20“mastodon&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
      - LexiMax 3y ago
        Yikes. I was half expecting you to end that last sentence with a contemptuous "NERRRRRRRRRDS!!!"
        Nextgrid 3y ago
        The fact that the fediverse crowd see nothing wrong with naming a social network "Mastodon" implies "NERRRDS" without having to even mention it. Btw, I say this as a nerd & tech guy that hates ad-supported social media and wishes for a better alternative, but the current iteration "fediverse" is not it, for many different reasons besides branding which I've written about previously: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=“Nextgrid”%20“mastodon&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
        LexiMax 3y ago
        > The fact that the fediverse crowd see nothing wrong with naming a social network "Mastodon" implies "NERRRDS" without having to even mention it. I don't think Mastodon even makes the top 25 of most cringeworthy social media parlance when "tweet" continues to be the reigning champion since 2006.
  - SamWhited 3y ago
    It's not. In so far as you can assign a "goal" to a network as diverse as the fediverse, many services (maybe most?) started out as a way to specifically get away from the growth mindset of giant corporations. The fediverse was initially popularized among the queer and trans communities as a way to remain safe from giant platforms that do a bad job moderating where they would be harassed all day. These are the people who made the fediverse what it is, and they could not have done the same on a giant billion-user platform like Facebook. Somewhere smaller and more intimate is easier to moderate, and keeps people safer. The point isn't rapid growth, or adoption, it's organic growth that doesn't outpace our ability to keep our users safe.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- drdaeman 3y ago
  Adoption as in numbers to please some department or board (or even a lone server owner) probably isn't. Not in general. Adoption as in getting more and more interesting people posting and talking? Probably yes, because if it's not then I suppose I don't get what the heck this could be all about.
  - rcme 3y ago
    Think about a physical community, perhaps the area where you live. Do you really want the population of your neighborhood to 10x? Population size changes the characteristics of a place. Sometimes, you’re content with the way things are.
    - drdaeman 3y ago
      If not for the physical space constraints (crowded streets) - I suppose I do. More folks around means more opportunities, more diversity. Even if I won't interact with 99.9% of them, why would I be against a possibility that they'll bring something more I might like to the table? I mean, unlike in physical world, no one can shove anything up my face unless I'm specifically in a mood to see what else is out there. The beauty of distributed digital landscapes (as opposed to corporate-ran walled gardens) is that you're in more control of how it works and what you see. When there's no central hub, there is no land to fight for - I don't have to see the giant concrete anthills of dense cities, the space I see is configured to my preferences. And of course I would like to have more options of what to read and whom to talk to, than less. Even though I'm unlikely to consume any of this Instagram content (it's just not my thing). So, I don't quite get this "barbarians at the gate!" thing. But then I don't get the idea of Fediverse servers as some sort of communities either - to me having a shared server is just an unfortunate consequence of technical limitations making it's highly impractical a true distributed system. I really don't want to care what server something or someone is on.
nobody9999 3y ago
>Blocking one of the biggest on-ramps will surely work wonders for adoption. I'm not clear on what, exactly, Meta's AP offering might be (is it a separate user base from their other products, or an integration into them?) or how it will interact with other fediverse instances (FB/Insta users can follow users in the Fediverse without Meta enabling the reverse?). If, on the other hand, there's full, two-way federation with Meta's services, that could be a huge boon to the fediverse, as it would share their "network effect" with a bunch of other players. Which, I guess, is possible. But given Meta's track record of the lengths that they'll go to in pursuit of growth and profit, I'd be shocked if they actually did so. As such, it doesn't surprise me that the fediverse is suspicious and skeptical of Meta's entrance.
- TrueDuality 3y ago
  Just a guess but I think they're going to do a full two-way federation with injected ad content. This could be very sneaky in how it works with the existing fediverse protocols. You really only have the power to block an instance or a user. What if each ad has its own user ID and is returned inline with any remote query for content? What if they take it a step further and inject ads using desired user's own IDs to show them when you follow your grandmother's content who would be very difficult to move off of FB? As a fediverse host you can probably make custom spam like filters, and I'm sure there will be some distributed tools to fight this kind of thing... But right now a lot of the fediverse is assuming that moderation of external hosts is pretty straight forward and not actively adversarial. If you disagree with the policies or the populace that is attracted to a particular instance block the instance. That doesn't work with something at this scale. I don't agree with instances proactively blocking Meta before they've shown their true colors, but I also don't think they're wrong. I just think we should let the monsters take off their mask and allow the social consequences to come when the blocks happen for a good reason.
  - nobody9999 3y ago
    >If you disagree with the policies or the populace that is attracted to a particular instance block the instance. That doesn't work with something at this scale. Ummm...Isn't that what TFA is all about? Blocking bad actor instances? Or are you asserting that "What if each ad has its own user ID and is returned inline with any remote query for content? What if they take it a step further and inject ads using desired user's own IDs to show them when you follow your grandmother's content who would be very difficult to move off FB?" are the actions of a good citizen of the Fediverse? I'd say those would be the actions of a profoundly bad actor who shouldn't be allowed to interact with my fediverse instance. >If you disagree with the policies or the populace that is attracted to a particular instance block the instance. That doesn't work with something at this scale. I'm not sure why you don't think blocking would be workable. You can block hosts and entire IP ranges in admin UIs for AP instances, or you can just block all of Meta's AS'[0] at the network level. How is that unworkable? >I don't agree with instances proactively blocking Meta before they've shown their true colors, but I also don't think they're wrong. I just think we should let the monsters take off their mask and allow the social consequences to come when the blocks happen for a good reason. I don't necessarily disagree, but given Meta's past disrespect for their product (that'd be you, by the way), it's not surprising that many folks don't want anything to do with them -- before or after they show their true colors. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_system_%28Internet%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_system_%28Internet%...

cyanydeez 3y ago

Yeah, f your tech is meant to "federate" the internet, being a block on the larger old guard isn't the way to go, unless your tech really ain't much.

LexiMax 3y ago
If the end state of the fediverse is the same incumbent social networks running the federated social media sphere just like they run their walled gardens, what would've been the point of the entire exercise? Meta already has their social networks. The fediverse doesn't need them, and I don't see why they "need" the fediverse either - unless their plan is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
- hughesjj 3y ago
  So it'll just be a new set of walled gardens with no history we can evaluate? How is that better?
  - LexiMax 3y ago
    You and I must be working with different definitions of "Walled Garden." I can connect to multiple places on the fediverse with a single app. The app also works pretty consistently between servers and doesn't go out of its way to drive engagement with dark patterns or serve me ads.
- cyanydeez 3y ago
  But your argument, as we've seen, only means resetting the enshittiffication clock. The next level tech would prevent the type of preferential monopoly.

COGlory 3y ago

Hmm, think I will #FefiBlock MOULE instead, they seem obnoxious and annoying.

dleslie 3y ago

Ah yes, let's punish and ostracize one of the largest silos for their attempts to be open to federation. Why, exactly?

ceejayoz 3y ago
Because their motives are suspect?
- cpill 3y ago
  there motives are...?
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Embrace, extend, extinguish. Like they did with news organizations already. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pivot_to_video https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pivot_to_video)
    - zer0zzz 3y ago
      EEE AKA FUD
  - api 3y ago
    Surveillance, spam (advertising), algorithmic timelines (prioritizing toxicity because it maximizes engagement), and embrace-extend-extinguish.
- fmajid 3y ago
  Their motives are probably compliance with the interoperability provisions of the European Union’s upcoming Digital Markets Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/04/eu-digital-markets-acts-interoperability-rule-addresses-important-need-raises https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/04/eu-digital-markets-act... Since that’s a legal requirement, it’s not something they can yank in the future.

LexiMax 3y ago

I don't really see what good can come from an entrenched social media company responsible for walled garden communities trying to enter the fediverse. The whole point of federation is to _avoid_ those single points of failure. Besides, if I wanted to see posts from Facebook or Instagram users, I know where to find them.

jeena 3y ago
Exactly my thinking too. They could have their API like it was in the beginning where you could post things and read things and we could then create some translation layer for those people who really want to read their grandmas posts in their Mastodon app.

rvz 3y ago

Fediverse: We want adoption in the Fediverse. Meta: Sure. Let's get 2B into the Fediverse with Instagram Threads. Fediverse: No! Not that sort of adoption! Block Meta from the Fediverse now! As expected and predicted in [0]: 'Instagram's success on ActivityPub is also Mastodon's nightmare and it tends to more centralization.' Looks like Threads is going to be the biggest Mastodon-compatible network on the Fediverse and the other admins of larger instances who signed those NDAs won't block them anyway, with the smaller ones making themselves irrelevant if they do. Meta once again is winning. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36012434 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36012434

SamWhited 3y ago
You're right, we don't want that sort of adoption! We want slow, paced, organic growth. Users should join the fediverse because they want to be there, not because a giant corporation cut their accounts over to a new service that supports some random thing they've never heard of and don't understand. The culture clash that will result from Facebooks decision could be devastating, so naturally people are pushing back against that kind of adoption. > with the smaller ones making themselves irrelevant if they do I don't think this is true. The fediverse started out as a way to specifically have small services where users (mostly trans and queer users early on) wouldn't be harassed all day. "Irrelevant" only makes sense if you're thinking from the perspective of "get as many users as possible", but the fediverse isn't really about that. Small servers of marginalized people talking in private spaces where no one is harassing them is still extremely relevant.
nobody9999 3y ago
>...with the smaller ones making themselves irrelevant if they do. Irrelevant to who and/or what? I'd expect that most instances aren't interested in the stuff going on over on Meta's services, most likely because they're on the fediverse to get away from them. What's more, not every site wants to monetize their users or maximize engagement. Rather, they aim to be a community. If your[0] goal is to "increase your reach" to improve your economic prospects, then small instances will likely be irrelevant -- to you. If that's your goal, I don't want you on my AP instance anyway. There's way too much of that elsewhere. [0] That's a general "you," not rvz specifically.

SamWhited 3y ago

Excellent. There may be other solutions too, but I haven't heard or thought of any. There are two reasons why this is a good thing, I think: The fediverse is about creating a more decentralized internet. Facebook is about centralizing as much of the internet on its servers and sucking up as much data as possible. These things simply aren't compatible. We've seen over, and over again what happens when you allow big tech companies into your open standards. Whether it was Google destroying the XMPP network, or Microsoft deliberately trying to cripple Open Office, we know how this will end. Facebook may play nice for a day or two, but one day some product manager will decide they have most of the users, so why play nice? They'll introduce a new (proprietary) feature to try and get their users to complain to their friends that messages aren't as cool when they're not on Facebook, suck up most of the users, then defederate. Or they'll just refuse to follow the standard properly because they know best (ala Google refusing to implement TLS for server to server connections with XMPP, making many smaller servers choose to defederate for their users safety). Also, we've seen how bad their behavior can be in terms of moderation, being party to genocide, allowing nazis, etc. so why would we allow them to bring all that too our users? Blocking entire servers until they change their behavior, or permanently if they refuse to, has been an extremely effective moderation solution that has kept the fediverse safe. This only works if server sizes stay relatively small (where the crossover point is, I don't know, but I know facebook is way beyond it).

MBCook 3y ago

We’re open to everyone! No not like that! A person going by Bloonface (https://mastodon.social/@Bloonface/110605013435138542# https://mastodon.social/@Bloonface/110605013435138542#.) put it perfectly. People complain more people should dump centralization and move to Mastodon, but every time they try they get shouted at for doing it wrong. Posting too much. Using hashtags. Not using hashtags. Not adding alt descriptions. Not using content warnings. Using content warnings. Using them, but for the wrong thing. Joining the big servers. Joining the bad servers. Talking about Twitter. Not calling it ‘the bird site’. Not being pro-(whatever) enough. Demanding people do any of the above. A number of people I like went to Mastodon, I enjoy I can keep reading their stuff. And I get the problems with Bluesky. But boy do I wish I had an invite, it sounds so much less contentious and more fun.

jacooper 3y ago
They are trying to protect the fediverse from Facebook Embrace, extend, extinguish them.
- MBCook 3y ago
  Why? FB doesn’t need to. They’re what, tens of thousands of times bigger? And there is nothing stopping servers from defederating at the drop of a hat. We already know that, it happens constantly for some reason.
LexiMax 3y ago
> People complain more people should dump centralization and move to Mastodon, but every time they try they get shouted at for doing it wrong. It seems 100% reasonable to suspect the motives of a company with two massive walled-garden social networks under their belt. The fediverse doesn't need them, and there's no obvious upside of federation for them. Besides, on my list of issues with Facebook and Instagram, "not being accessible from the wider internet" isn't even on my top 10. If I wanted to read posts from those networks, I know where to find them.
- cmdli 3y ago

zer0zzz 3y ago

When admins decide to outright block entire domains based on some contrived bias with no input from users (ie user setting to block meta or whatever fediblock says) that pretty much kills the utility and purpose for having a federated network. This is like if some mail host decided to block all mail from gmail domains.

tourmalinetaco 3y ago
Actually, that’s rather par for the course for a federated network. Don’t like it? Make your own fediverse node. That’s literally the entire point.
- zer0zzz 3y ago
  Wow so it’s both awful to use and separated into fragmented bubbles. What a great product.
- diggernet 3y ago
  It is par for the course, and it is also the thing that'll keep federated networks from succeeding. Look, I don't like or trust Facebook. But how many customers would Fastmail have if they defederated from Gmail? For that matter, how much would Gmail have grown if they had decided not to federate with Hotmail and Yahoo? If people can't use your service to talk to or follow friends & family on other services, they'll just use the services their friends & family use. Sure, they could use both, but why bother? The one that isn't huge has little or nothing to offer them. I'm all for letting users of federated networks set up their own personal blocks of users, nodes, entire services, whatever. But when admins defederate, it blocks all good communication, too. And turns the federated network into an unfederated non-network. > Don’t like it? Make your own fediverse node. Sure. And when you do set up your own fediverse node with the intent of actually staying federated, you will quickly find yourself with a de-fediverse node, as admins punish you for daring to let your computer talk to the computer of someone they don't like. Edit: To be more clear, I am NOT saying that fediverse nodes want or need to be huge like Gmail or Facebook. I'm saying that convincing people to escape the walled garden into the fediverse is mostly not gonna be possible without a demonstrated commitment to keeping the network connected. It'd be like trying to convince someone to set up their own email server, when nobody they know will ever see their emails because Gmail dumps it all into the spam bucket. What Gmail has done to the idea of a personal email server, the fediverse is doing to itself, self-inflicted.

jacooper 3y ago

Bit off topic, but what was the point of the Meta rename? Literally almost all of their internal domains are still Facebook, and now they dumped the mertaverse and switched to AI, just call it Facebook!

tyrust 3y ago

Why was this flagged?

tourmalinetaco 3y ago
Because apparently there is a non-zero population of Facebook-apologists on HN.

danradunchev 3y ago

Just give all of them a finger. Don't allow anyone to commercially profit from your content without your consent. Using Nginx to block Meta, Twitter and ChatGPT access to your sites - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36476243 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36476243