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

Technology

38590 readers
280 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BuxtonWater@beehaw.org 17 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] madjo@geddit.social 16 points 2 years ago (33 children)

On the one hand I can totally understand this reaction by Kev, on the other hand, by completely locking off all discussions like this, means that there's no way to change things for the better.

Granted, it's Meta, they're not to be trusted, but still, a discussion, if one has the time, wouldn't be too bad an idea.

[–] 00@kbin.social 17 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (8 children)

Granted, it's Meta, they're not to be trusted, but still, a discussion, if one has the time, wouldn't be too bad an idea.

It feels like Meta has to pay like a billion dollars in fines every few weeks in europe for violations. And they don't seem to plan on stopping (based on the fact that it happens every few weeks). Even faintly hoping that you could even have the smallest chance of moving even the smallest gear in Meta by appearing in such a meeting is complete delusion.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Rentlar@beehaw.org 17 points 2 years ago

I'm sorry, but it's on Meta to come forward to the public Fediverse and be open with their plans, not try to organize some hush-hush meetings with Mastodon instance owners.

Connectivity on fediverse platforms like Mastodon, Lemmy rely heavily on trust between users to maintain an engaging community. Unless Meta publicly demonstrates otherwise, people are right to distrust Meta at the outset, given their past and current affairs.

Meta's P92 should release itself on the Fediverse's terms, rather than Fediverse catering to Meta's terms. Otherwise, Meta should just make their own platform and see if Fediverse instances latch onto it.

[–] Sabata11792@kbin.social 15 points 2 years ago

Meta intends to harvest content and kill off competition before it poses a threat.

load more comments (30 replies)
[–] phazed09@kbin.social 14 points 2 years ago (24 children)

Personally, I'm not planning on using the Meta service, but I'm not a fan of pre-emptive defederation either. The vast majority of P92 users will have 0 clue what federation/activitypub is, let alone actually log into Lemmy, Mastodon, Kbin, etc. For them, they will forever think of themselves as @username, not @username.

I'm totally fine with Meta releasing an app who's posts are exposed via ActivityPub, along with being able to consume other posts via ActivityPub. If anything, I would like to think it'll drive more people off the Meta platform and into Mastodon, as moving to a federated app doesn't mean they have to completely break connections with their network on-platform with Meta.

Overall, I'm more in favour of allowing a personal user to choose to defederate from specific instances, because regardless of what happens, if Meta joins, there will be other companies getting on the bandwagon, and endlessly splitting up based of which instances federate with which others will eventually lead to the whole damn thing falling apart and the big players becoming the de-jure instances anyways.

I mean, the vast majority of Lemmy/Kbin users migrated from Reddit, as did the vast majority of Mastodon users from Twitter. I'm fine with keeping things open to help facilitate more user growth to community run instances, while also having a place for the less tech-savvy to get their feet wet.

[–] grue@kbin.social 16 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The vast majority of P92 users will have 0 clue what federation/activitypub is, let alone actually log into Lemmy, Mastodon, Kbin, etc. For them, they will forever think of themselves as @username, not @username@meta.com.

There's an argument to be made that that's exactly why everyone else should defederate preemptively.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (23 replies)
[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 14 points 2 years ago (17 children)

If Meta wants to make an app that is competitive with other fediverse apps and is actually good, I don't see the problem. If they want to harm other fediverse instances then I do. How much harm could they do to the fediverse? Would they then block off all other apps when their app is the biggest essentially?

[–] llama@midwest.social 14 points 2 years ago

"and is actually good" it won't be actually good because with Meta the users are always going to be the product. What you are thinking is exactly what they want to do. Build the best looking app first so everybody installs it, then they're in a position to start making the calls about the future of the fediverse.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] bobby_tables@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago (11 children)

I’m surprised by all the negativity. Is it not a good thing Meta is going to use open standard instead of a proprietary one?

[–] czech@faux.moe 17 points 2 years ago

The concern is that they will attempt to "embrace, extend, and extinguish". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish

[–] macallik@kbin.social 17 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I think they have a history of being amoral/indifferent towards the spaces they create and impact of their (lack of) moderation, and as if that wasn't enough, I also think that they are entering the fediverse at the worst possible time in terms of disdain for corporations

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] redcalcium@c.calciumlabs.com 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

The FOSS community is wary due to "embrace, extend, extinguish" approach by various tech giants in the past. When a tech giant suddenly want to embrace federation while offering no details whatsoever, people are right to be wary.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] fouc@lemm.ee 13 points 2 years ago

Early on when Google wasn't shit and Facebook was just coming out of the startup phase both of them had chat platforms based on XMPP (the OG federating protocol). For a few glorious moments everyone could chat with anyone through the corresponding XMPP endpoints. At some point they decided they can't be arsed anymore and shut off federation on their servers. They captured enough market and siloed their users.

There's 1 million % this will happen again. It's textbook EEE.

Well done on Mastodon admins for not cooperating with Facebook's strong arming tactics. Facebook's server will evolve into another walled garden, Mastodon federating with them will only help them.

Fuck them

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] fsniper@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

A more important topic is, what federated data will be kept on Meta, and most importantly HOW that data will be processed/used/sold by Meta.

[–] TheYang@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

meta can already freely pull that data from any instance
ActivityPub baby!

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›