this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2023
889 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37742 readers
482 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The exchange is about Meta's upcoming ActivityPub-enabled network Threads. Meta is calling for a meeting, his response is priceless!

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 204 points 1 year ago (2 children)

A 45 minute "round table" with multiple rando masto instance admins? That doesn't sound like enough time for the table to get very round.

It sounds more like 5 minutes introduction, 30 minute presentation by Meta, 10 minutes Q&A. But oops our presentation ran just a bit long, and I really do have a hard stop at noon so we really only have about 5 minutes for questions thanks for all of the valuable feedback we'll be sure to circle back offline.

[–] [email protected] 84 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, I see you've taken part in Bullshit Corporate Meetings™ before!

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago

a true person of culture!

[–] [email protected] 55 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"We here at Meta take people's privacy very seriously and are committed to protecting our users. Unfortunately at this time we can't discuss what measures we've put in place."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 80 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This conversation will be off the record, as the team may discuss confidential details that should not be discussed with others

Translation: Nobody needs to know how much money we offer you as a bribe.

[–] [email protected] 59 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My guess is that anyone attending will have to sign an NDA. That will make it hard to speak out against Meta joining the federation. If someone does say anything, the Meta lawyers will destroy them.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They did with the last one. That's why there's so much distrust about it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 69 points 1 year ago (6 children)

What an absolute legend. Also, I do so solemnly swear that any instance caught federating with meta is going straight in my hosts file.

You have been warned.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago

share the list, I'll add them to my pihole!

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

I am looking for a new instance because my admin is on the fence.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 68 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

An infamously vicious predator walks up and bares its fangs at us, and half of you want to pet it instead of fleeing for your lives.

It's hard to overstate my disappointment right now.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 67 points 1 year ago

What a horrible click-bait title. No one and nothing was "destroyed" here. He replied in a polite manner to a company whose goals do not align with his own.

[–] [email protected] 59 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Reports of Meta's Destruction Greatly Exaggerated"

OK, it's one of my pet peeves that every fricking disagreement is headlined as X destroyed Y. Click-bait is the bane of the internet and makes everything worse. Don't participate.

I'm glad Kev got to speak their mind, but I highly doubt this changed anything meaningful over at Zuck HQ.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly. I don't get what was so great about being passive aggressive to a Meta employee

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 53 points 1 year ago (26 children)

To create an Instagram account, your identity has to be validated. I prefer anonymity. Once Meta gets their foot in the door, I guarantee they will try to bully the fediverse into doing things their way. Hard pass for me.

load more comments (26 replies)
[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I really hope that we'll be able to maintain a strong resistance and fortification against Meta taking over the fediverse.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

Only defense is to defederate meta and any instance that chooses to federate with meta

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 50 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Kinda shook at the Meta-supporting comments. They should not be anywhere near the fediverse. Meta is a business first and the users are the product. Companies now just want to maximize profits, minimize costs, and hoard wealth for... rocket ships? Fediverse itself is community-owned, independent, and decentralized.

With how new all of these controversies are, it's kinda baffling that people are still defending this company. They're going to continue to exploit anything and everything for profits. It wouldn't even surprise me if the genuine reason they're interested in this concept is because they want to take what's open-sourced, adapt it, and commercialize it. I would imagine they're thinking, 'why invest in a brand new backend when we can profit off of an existing one, unrestricted.' And this "meeting" that they're forming is basically a free forum for them to learn and ask questions about how they can exploit the Fediverse and find any way to profit off of it. "Off the record" anything is shady as fuck.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A good response. Civlised and to-the-point.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (54 children)

I disagree.

I hope there'll be people discussing sensibly.
For example the question how the rest of the fediverse would like Meta to act, when / if they have the by far largest instance on Fediverse with Threads.
Should they Rate-Limit queries from their users to other Instances, as to not overload them? This would protect other instances, but make the federated experience worse, driving more people to threads.
Would the Fediverse rather that Meta mirrors images etc on their servers too, or pull those from the original server?
Maybe they have UX ideas that would be useful to have somewhat uniform (like the subreddit/community/magazine stuff here), and would like input on them.

Of course just blocking them is an option for the fediverse, but doing that blindly seems like a missed opportunity for both sides.
More freely available content would be great, wouldn't it?

Maybe they have Ideas on the protocol, that they want to talk with admins about as a first step to gain more perspective. And certainly they are likely to be data-hungry greedy shit, but there is a chance that they are actually good ideas - there are actual people working at meta after all.

There's tons of ways in which this could be useful, and I don't really understand the completely blocking approach I see a lot of.
They want to use ActivityPub, that's awesome, finally something new and big that uses an open freaking standard on the web. What are the downsides? If it sucks for communities they can easily block Meta.
Yes, Meta is not a Company working for the betterment of the world, certainly.
But maybe, just maybe, goals align here, and Meta can make money and improve the Fediverse and the Internet with it. And certainly, maybe they want to "take over" ActivityPub, and that would indeed be bad. And even then, wouldn't knowing because they told you be much better than knowing because they're meta?
So, if they want to change the Protocol, be very, very wary of their proposals. But even there there they could just want reasonable improvements because they suddenly deal with 100x of the next biggest instances.

tl;dr: when you tell people what you'd like them to do, it increases the chances of them doing that.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Of course just blocking them is an option for the fediverse, but doing that blindly seems like a missed opportunity for both sides.
More freely available content would be great, wouldn’t it?

The issue is once you open these floodgates you're not going to be able to close them, at least not without alienating a vast majority of users on both sides. Furthermore, once meta gains the majority of users and content on its instances (and this is really more of a "when", not "if" situation), they can start making changes to AP and overall infrastructure and forcing other instances to either adapt to that, or get left behind one by one, similar to what google does regardless of W3C and other browsers have to adapt even though it goes against the agreed standard.

If meta gains a foothold in the fediverse and eventually start isolating the smaller instances, it's going to be the email situation all over again, we'll have just a few large trusted providers and the rest will be a seemingly unsafe niche that most people avoid. Giving them the benefit of the doubt is just foolish, meta will not let a few fediverse admins dictate their policy (even assuming they have the backbone to stand up to them, and considering the recent meeting/NDA/"shareholder" drama most of them definitely don't).

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago

Better to nip it in the bud than let it fester like a wound. Give companies as evil as meta an inch and they'll take a mile.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is super naive. Facebook/Meta has zero interest in "playing nice" with competitors in any field. Their intentions with the fediverse are not pure, and you're a fool if you think otherwise.

This is capitalism, and this is one of the most profitable corporations that has ever existed on the planet. A corporation who has made those profits almost entirely from the private data of its users (and even some users that aren't subscribed to their service. That's how much data they have).

They don't "work together" with competitors "for the good of everyone." That's a pipe dream.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

Respectful post, but respectfully disagree. The longer the fediverse can stay free of monetary-driven communities, the longer it will last. Wait until the proposals for blue check marks and karma hit the ActivityPup "plus" standard and it's too late for the platform.

load more comments (51 replies)
[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Fuck Meta and all they stand for.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 year ago

I need meta to just stay away from the fediverse forever

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

FB: We're confused why someone would sign up for a social media site set up by somebody in their dorm room, tell us how to be more like you.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

TL;DR (if you can’t be bothered reading all of the below) - Fosstodon will wait and see what happens, but if Facebook’s new service introduces any issues that could negatively impact our users, we will defederate.

This is Fosstodon's official stance on the whole Facebook joining the Fediverse debacle.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Gross, this is obviously their attempt to embrace, extend and extinguish the Fediverse.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago

It's hilarious for Meta to invite some person who happens to run a server to an "off the record" conversation with "confidential details that should not be shared with others" anyway. LOL.

The only "confidential" information that's likely to be involved in such an exchange would be some kind of bribe for the person to shut down or assimilate their infrastructure with Meta's. It's not like they're going to reveal Meta's trade secrets to someone they believe to essentially be a competitor or anything.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (9 children)

The main issue I take with this is saying it is off the record.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Meta could probably mitigate at least some fears about this if they did any planning or discussions out in the open.

I get they want to have a massive "reveal event" or something, but come on...

It's entirely possible (but perhaps unlikely) that this is a passion project by some engineers and Facebook is just sponsoring them "hands off".

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wonder if Gab was invited. It would be hilarious if the only instances willing to federate with Meta were Nazis.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago

I find it a tad amusing that this news about Facebook's latest attempt at fucking over the Fediverse is where I hear about the pixelfed project for the first time.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago

I don't think they "destroyed" Meta. Meta was polite and they were passive aggressive? What is there to celebrate?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Meta is going for a price run on failure it feels like, I worked for a company bought out by (no names to prevent breaking my NDA) them super publically and then a year or so later firing 90% of the staff and replacing them (for no reason) and leaving a skeleton crew.

And as expected things have just been on a steady decline ever since. The people running the show at Meta have to be off their rocks on coke.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They just wanted your former company to not exist anymore. That's what they do: see competition and eat it.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›