Think about email. A lot of people use Gmail, Hotmail, or other big email providers. However, Oxford University can run its own email server for its own university community. The EFF can run their own email server for their own purposes. Google or Microsoft doesn't get to dictate to Oxford or the EFF how they run their email server; and they can't stand in the way of Oxford and the EFF sending email to one another.
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
279 points (97.9% liked)
No Stupid Questions
35671 readers
1518 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It is not that simple to run your own email server anymore. Big providers like Google will treat emails from your server as spam and you will have a difficult time having the mail properly delivered. So big tech has effectively squeezed out federated email.
Set up DKIM and they'll accept your email. That's just anti-spam / anti-phishing; it's not an attempt to shut down independent email.
The big players do definitely try to shut down independent email. We don't have to let them succeed though, and the way to fight back is to host your own.
Edit: *one way to fight back.
Hmm. If what you were saying was true, then a lot of new Lemmy instance operators would be having problems with email verification.
Lemmy allows using any smtp server to send emails. Can use Googles servers, fastmails servers etc.
It's different from running your own email server. If you run your own, then Google and the others are definently not going to trust it. There are lots of blog posts about the pain of running your own email server.
There are literally no problems running your own server if you comply with anti spam measures.
load more comments
(17 replies)
I’ve had hosted email from a service provider for years and never had a problem. I’m not talking anyone big here.
load more comments
(1 replies)
FUD
I have self hosted my email for five years. I'm a hobbyist and it is no problem for me.
Occassionally (very rarely) an email to a new address I've never sent before will end up erroneously in a spam folder. This never happens when I send to a business. Instead of everyone throwing up their hands and saying email is way too hard now, how about we hold the big providers accountable for their obvious bullying?
Because we can't. Who are you going to complain to about it?
Don't get me wrong, would love to give them as much pain as possible over this. But I don't see how we can do anything. If I start my own email server, I'm probably going to miss important emails and end up in lots of troubleshooting things. I'm wish it wasnt so. The ideas of the original internet was amazing but capitalism can't be reasoned with.
It consumes all until there is nothing left.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
That's absolutely not true. I run my own email server with multiple domains and multiple accounts and it's no where close to a difficult IT task.
If anything it's the ISPs that will hassle you for outbound SMTP. There are ways around that but generally blocked by default
load more comments
(6 replies)
To be fair, the example OP used was that two independent email servers could still send mail to eachother even if they can't send mail to gmail. I do feel like social networking has a little bit of an advantage over email there, because email, to be useful, needs to be able to talk to almost anyone you might need to send an email to, those specific users. If a few big instances defederate small instances in that scenario, you basically have to use the big instances because you will most likely need to talk to specific users who are on those big instances at some point. However, in a social network, you want to be able to talk to enough people to have discussions and content, but it doesn't matter as much if you can talk to any specific user or specific account, so it's much more viable to have a smaller network of independent instances that still functions if cut off from the big ones, as long as they can collectively retain enough users to be interesting.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Great example. Fedverse sounds like a space that corporations would have no interest in as there is no opportunity to create a monopoly.
That doesn’t really follow. Google doesn’t need to be able to create a monopoly over email to benefit from running Gmail, for example; consumer Gmail is basically a loss-leader for Google Workspaces, the money-making arm of Google Apps.
The only viable way to control the Fediverse is an embrace, extend, and extinguish approach.
- Join the Fediverse
- Pour a ton of money and manpower on your instance so most people migrate to it because it works better.
- Reach critical mass and defederate the others.
- Proceed to screw your users.
Anything less and you become a Fediverse backwater instead of a monopoly.
This sounds exactly like how they would think! Especially the reach critical mass and defederate from everyone else.
This is what many expect is the goal of Meta’s forthcoming Thread.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
The "Barbie" movie is the only allowed corporate interest on Lemmy, only in theaters July 21st.
I've seen your account all over the place, love it. You could even be the real one and we'd never have any way of knowing.
Does the meme account continue after barbie is done?
I will never stop until I win my Oscar this year for "Barbie".
I would have won it easily in 2018 if they named the movie "It's Hardin' Time" like I asked them to. "But ooohh, Margot, that name will never catch on, and what do you mean you want your character to 'Tonya Hardin' all over Nancy Kerrigan'?"
True genius is never appreciated until it's too late.
Your creepy AI picture of her freaks me out
... OK, I admit, I may have went a little too far with the photo filters this time.
load more comments
(5 replies)
"Free" is a simplification. Bad actors can hurt lemmy - however it is also easier for the individual to fight back. If an instance acts unfairly, an individual can choose to ignore that instance and not lose all of Lemmy - they would still have access to all other instances.
Follow up question - if I created my account on an instance, and that instance is a bad actor and disappears (not just defederated, but shuts down), wouldn't I lose my account and all the content associated with it? Posts, replies, saved stuff, etc? That is my understanding based on another thread.
Assuming so, doesn't that incentivise people to create their accounts on a large instance like lemmy.world? Let's be real that 99.99% of people are not going to host their own instance to create their account.
Your history would still be out there in the fediverse, but you'd no longer have access to your account to interact with it.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Sure they can. But...
- How can they compete in a space where people are already there providing a service without trying to extract value from them?
- Why would one of these larger instances sell out when their userbase can sustain them and selling out is antithetical to the reason they started the instance in the first place?
- I and many people like me would be fine in our own instances. We'd just defederate. If, say, lemmy.world sold out those guys would just have to switch instances. It's a pain, yes, but it's possible.
- By providing better services and features. Corporations are capable of providing good pro user services when they're forced to through competition, but what they'll do is do that until they build a big enough user base then splinter off and start pulling the same shit again. It's the whole thing behind embrace-extend-extinguish.
- Money. Lots of money. If money doesn't work they'll try to compete on point 1.
- Agree. Most people will be too lazy and unprincipled to care, but I'm fine with a smaller higher quality community and Lemmy makes that possible. If corporations get a foothold on the platform it'll still be impossible for them to get a 100% monopoly like they can on their own proprietary centralized platforms.
I don't think #2 is a strong argument. Reddit, when started, had very different ideals from what it does now. The founders did too, or at least the dead guy did, idk if spez was always what he is now.
If I started a Lemmy or Mastodon instance and it got REAL big, and after 5, maybe 10 years of maintaining it, it's sustainable, but probably not really making me money and I'm tired of running it... And Meta comes around and says "Hey we'll buy it for 10 million dollars so we can federate it with our own activitypub based social media", I'd probably say yes. Wouldn't you? And while everyone COULD switch, not everyone will. Not everyone switched from reddit either.
So I'd say it's theoretically possible to corporatize vast parts of the fediverse, but of course there will always be room for people to start new instanced that don't federate with the corporate ones.
load more comments
(2 replies)
it's similar to what's happening with mastodon right now. there's something going on with meta (the zuck) getting involved with mastodon.social, the biggest mastodon instance. because of that reason, a lot of people including myself have switched instances or to a different service entirely. it's an overwhelming 'no' for corporations getting involved with federated social media.
load more comments
(6 replies)
They can - but everyone else can choose to defederate from them. It gives others choice of whether or not they want their instance to participate (or let another instance) participate in their activities.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's like how game servers used to work back before matchmaking systems. If the server you like gets taken over by a dickwad, you can find a new one or start your own server.
Technically you can do this without a federated system like Lemmy, but it is way easier to do with a system like this than starting a normal website with the capacity to handle a large number of users as you don't necessarily need servers to handle a lot, you can just grab content from other servers you like.
If you have access to the source code (which you do), the only effective corporate attack against networked software is to convince all your friends not to use the software and to use their proprietary software instead.
They will eventually start astroturfing when the audience is big enough. There's no stopping that, but at least they won't be able to control the votes as easily.
It’s already started. There was a technology post earlier that included an affiliate link to a big online retailer.
It won’t be long before Disney astroturfs the entertainment communities and car companies astroturf the tech communities. There is no way to prevent it without requiring a level of privacy invasion that most people would not welcome.
The fediverse is just as susceptible to this as every other platform. Now that Lemmy is counting users in the millions, the enshitifcation will begin. I just hope the communities figure out some novel way to mitigate it.
It won't be the enshittification that we're used to and that Cory Doctorow wrote about. The platform as a whole is unlikely to do that to us, although certain instances definitely will.
Instead, this will be more like an arms race. Bad actors (especially spammers) will try to force their content upon us, and we will do everything we can to block/prevent that. I'm including astroturfing as part of this, since it's being run by peer nodes (unaffiliated with the platform) instead of admins.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
They could buyout instances if they wanted, but people could just moved to another instance and other instances can defederate from the corporate instance.
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is especially relevant right now. Meta (Facebook's parent company) is just now launching a (heavily) modified Mastodon instance. There is a push to immediately defederate them to keep them out (Source)
There's a good discussion about it here. But in short, if you allow a single dominant player to exist, they can effectively take over the entire ecosystem
Switch to a new instance when that happens
Easy enough to switch instances if/when it happens
view more: next ›