A response to Daring Fireball’s recent thinkpieces about Fediverse admins wanting to block Meta’s new ActivityPub platform.

  • Qazwsxedcrfv000@lemmy.unknownsys.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    While Meta’s platform is having access to the value created in the fediverse, aren’t we also getting access to the value created on their platforms too (of course unless you deny there is any value there)? Recipiocity is the true differentiator here in my opinion.

    For software, I think we need a more complete package than that to truly unlease the fediverse. Maybe an easy-to-use application (a la an email client or a bittorrent client) that allows prospective users to spin up an instance and feel the magic themselves. Otherwise people are just crowding into a few major instances and eventually the scaling problem will show up again. If we are going down that route, we should also consider incentive model(s) that makes thing sustainable. Lemmy is an open source software but that also means the developers are unpaid. But surely I applaud any idea that attempts to reduce the barrier of entry to the fediverse.

    • maynarkh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      aren’t we also getting access to the value created on their platforms too

      I guess we are, just as we had access to Reddit’s value. That’s the fear I guess, this is just part of the business cycle.

      First, they are going to provide value, be real nice until they are latched on, embrace the platform. Then they are going to start providing value to the instance owners by developing mod tools, better ways to more easily connect instances, maybe even some AI powered spam filter to block malicious instances, extending the.

      Finally we’ll realize they own the thing as they extinguish competitors by removing compatibility to “unverified” stuff in the name of security and we realized Meta has succeeded in extinguishing the free Fediverse.

      It might not be like that, but it has been so many times.

      • Very_Bad_Janet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Enshittifocation commences.

        I don’t mind chocolate in my peanut butter. But I don’t want Meta in my Fediverse.

      • Qazwsxedcrfv000@lemmy.unknownsys.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I wholeheartedly share the worry of rug pulling but we have to dance with the devils aka evil corps one way or another as we have no mean to eradicate them. As long as the goals aligned to a large enough extent, the alliance should still be accepted despite the unholiness.

        Meta’s platform(s) supporting ActivityPub can potentially give us a leverage. If they do honour how the system works and be reciprocal, it means they no longer monopolize the content (from which most values to us are derived) on its platforms. So if another Reddit madness happens again, valuable contents created would have been (or could be made) distributed across the fediverse already. That would make migration much easier. Just a change of URL and business as usual for most people. Of course you may say I am being overly optimistic here but there is no point in being pessimistic either.

        • Kichae@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          But that’s the thing. For a lot of people here, the goals are fundamentally misaligned. Much of this space was made by, and is populated by, people who explicitly and specifically walked away from corporate social media.

          We’re here exactly because we don’t want them.

          Obviously, that’s not everybody, but so many of us have actually learned the lessons of the last 15 months.

          • Qazwsxedcrfv000@lemmy.unknownsys.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            As the author Sean said in a response to my comment, defederating is always an option in the fediverse. It is a built-in feature. I am not against it. If some communities have enough spite to anything corporate social network, they can defederate as they please. Just bear in mind the spite is for everything corporate social network, the people and the content included. And there is no need to indulge in a grandiose manifesto. Just say “I hate Meta and anything associated with it” is more than enough.

            • Nicol Wistreich@social.coop
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              @qazwsxedcrfv000 @Kichae could it even be narrower than ‘corporate social media’? Ie maybe you run a tiny business and don’t have a problem with companies just because they’re companies. But you know monopolies are usually bad, so monopolies over the world’s public digital squares & discourse must be really bad.

              And so you ended up here, on Activity Pub, not completely convinced that an 8-million-monthly-active-user fediverse will survive federating with a 3-billion-daily-active-user monopoly.

              • Kichae@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                could it even be narrower than ‘corporate social media’?

                Yes and no. Yes, in that for many people it’s “Fuck Facebook in particular” because of just how absolutely invasive Meta has been, and how it has specifically turned brainwashing users into a business model.

                No in the sense that corporate social media will all inevitably try to do the same thing, sooner or later, because social media that’s actually usable for users’ interests just isn’t profitable. The enshitification process demands that we be manipulated into being more reactive, more hostile, and more open to the influence and exploitation.