Panos Damelos (@panos)
calckey.social
There is another reason I find the discussion about blocking #Meta's #ActivityPub project #Threads interesting: I've been saying for a while now that the #Fediverse is a new and different beast, and whoever tries to understand it simply as a direct social media replacement misses the whole picture. We're also federated communities, just as much. Today we see a lot of concern about "what will the #Fediverse do" with #Meta. Wanna know what we will do? Everything and nothing. Because the Fediverse is not one entity. This is the essence of its decentralized nature - and that's cool. If your server intends to block Meta servers completely - cool. If not, cool again. But if you expect a unified response on something like that, you're in for a disappointment. This is not a "schism", a "problem", something to "solve". This is just decentralization in practice. We don't **need** to have the same blocklists, and that's ok. Open protocols are not something you can control, so chill. When the time comes for this subject, choose a server with a policy that you agree with. But if you're worried that we won't all have one unified stance... are you sure you actually like #decentralization?

For those who don’t want to click through, this is the content of the post:

There is another reason I find the discussion about blocking #Meta’s #ActivityPub project #Threads interesting:

I’ve been saying for a while now that the #Fediverse is a new and different beast, and whoever tries to understand it simply as a direct social media replacement misses the whole picture. We’re also federated communities, just as much.

Today we see a lot of concern about “what will the #Fediverse do” with #Meta. Wanna know what we will do? Everything and nothing. Because the Fediverse is not one entity. This is the essence of its decentralized nature - and that’s cool. If your server intends to block Meta servers completely - cool. If not, cool again.

But if you expect a unified response on something like that, you’re in for a disappointment.

This is not a “schism”, a “problem”, something to “solve”. This is just decentralization in practice. We don’t need to have the same blocklists, and that’s ok. Open protocols are not something you can control, so chill. When the time comes for this subject, choose a server with a policy that you agree with. But if you’re worried that we won’t all have one unified stance… are you sure you actually like #decentralization?

Edit: It looks like the post got copied by Lemmy anyway, but I’ll leave it for now just in case it doesn’t show up on Mlem or Jerboa (or if it gets deleted)

  • Pixel@beehaw.org
    13·
    2 years ago

    So, on one hand, yes. absolutely agreed, on all counts.

    On the other hand, the point of social media is to engage with people. What if your mom has an account on meta’s new activitypub platform? Is the interoperability of these platforms not also a huge feature? What if I want to follow my mom on mastodon when she’s on facebook whatever, but not give meta my data? These all work best when we can protect ourselves and engage responsibly, and defederation/blocking at a server level, while a WONDERFUL emergency button, also rejects a lot of the funcitonality and beauty of the fediverse. And I think there’s probably room to find a middle ground that protects users well while still letting them have that sort of engagement?

    • Butterbee (She/Her)@beehaw.org
      7·
      2 years ago

      Then text with your mom. Why does everyone always have to connect through every social media platform at once?

      Edit: IF you want to be on an instance that doesn’t federate with Meta. If you want to have access to meta’s stuff then go to an instance that does federate with them obv.

      • Pixel@beehaw.org
        4·
        2 years ago

        I’m just posing a hypothetical here to show that, while yes I don’t want meta getting any of their hands on my data, centralized social media is so much more than the company that runs it, and granularity of control over stuff like that (if such a thing were possible) would only be a benefit.

    • dandi8@kbin.social
      7·
      2 years ago

      Mom doesn’t necessarily have to be on Meta. If she wants her son to engage with her on a platform, she can be on kbin, lemmy or any other FOSS alternative once it reaches maturity.

      Not being tied to a giant corporation should not mean “obscure” or “unusable for normal people”.

      People figured out email, they can figure out the fediverse, it just needs time.

      • Pixel@beehaw.org
        5·
        2 years ago

        Two things–

        1. I agree it’s going to take time, but do you think meta will wait for that time to come?
        2. people did figure out email, but how many lay people are only using Gmail and not protonmail or whatever else?
        • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
          3·
          2 years ago

          Gmail happened because they were giving away email for free, below cost, so that they could use their customers’ data.

          That isn’t legal any more in the post GDPR EU.

        • dandi8@kbin.social
          3·
          2 years ago

          My point is that we need time and patience, not interfacing with Meta. Whether they use ActivityPub or something proprietary shouldn’t matter to us and I’m not convinced matters at all in this context.
          Meta already didn’t wait - they have Facebook, Instagram etc. There’s Twitter. We already exist in a space with big competitors, and somehow it works. Inviting them to our space sounds risky (risk of centralization, ads, bots, rage bait for engagement…).
          If our thing is better, more wholesome, with less ads and bots, it’s going to attract the people we want on our platform, regardless of whether or not we federate with Meta.
          Plus, as was already said, fediverse success should not be measured by how many people use it. If enough do to produce good content and engage with, that’s great on its own :) Small communities have benefits.