Why would you want to defederate at all? It’s akin to hiding your head in the sand, except done on a community-wide scale. Just because you can’t see the nazi over there in the bushes doesn’t mean he isn’t squatting there, observing you.
Comment on Threads is officially starting to test ActivityPub integration
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 11 months agoYep, can’t wait to be able to personally defederate from them, I hope that option comes soon.
DaDragon@kbin.social 11 months ago
sour@kbin.social 11 months ago
is facebook
why wouldn’t you want to defederate
Aatube@kbin.social 11 months ago
bc there's people on the other side :)
Draconic_NEO@lemmy.world 11 months ago
They certainly have the choice to migrate. If they don’t want to it’s their problem. Fediverse wasn’t meant to be a wide open connect with anyone anywhere unconditionally network, if you want that go to Nostr (it’s filled with Right wing trolls and crypto/nft bros for that very reason). It’s meant to allow for instances to communicate and share content while still being run independently of one another. That also includes the ability to block other servers.
TrumpetX@programming.dev 11 months ago
Read this for an idea as to why people are against letting Meta federate: ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-ne…
It’s not a cut and dry yes or no for me.
atocci@kbin.social 11 months ago
I might be looking at this wrong, so please let me know why if I am, but I don't understand the argument that Google killed XMPP. The protocol existed before Google and still existed after Google. I assume the number of people using the XMPP protocol before Google implemented it was small. Then for a little while, Google added all of their users into the network who could now message all the "pure" XMPP users who were already there. After that though, when Google left the protocol and took all its users that weren't using XMPP before then anyway, how did that kill it? Would you not still have the same group of XMPP users who were there before Google? Anyone you could chat with before you could still chat with now.
TrumpetX@programming.dev 11 months ago
XMPP was very popular. Google joined it, and with it, the power to give it’s users on Gmail access to all the other chat products that all had more chat users by sharing the same XMPP space. Users were very happy to use the superior Gmail product and also let go of their old chat tools because they could still talk to everyone just fine!
Google waited until they had most of the users and simply started making non compatible changes to their chat until they finally defederated themselves and suddenly their users could no longer chat with anyone who wasn’t also on Google.
People noticed, but most of the users were no longer willing to drop their now-familiar gchat client because they were now used to it. Users like me who wanted to use Pidgin still were suddenly unable to chat with 80% of their friends unless they gave in and opened up gchat too.
If Google never federated with the system, we might still likely have aim, msn, etc still around focusing on their chat users. But Google did their thing, stole the market and we’re where we’re at now. Ironically, most people I know now disable Google chat because Google has tried really hard to ruin something that was just fine. But no one is installing Pidgin again and have mostly moved to Discord and Slack (at least in my circles).
Spaghetti_Hitchens@kbin.social 11 months ago
Obviously we will have to see what sort of content comes in from Threads, but knowing Meta, they will be serving a lot of ads in it. So instances will effectively be distributing Meta ads for free.
misk@sopuli.xyz 11 months ago
It’s like blocking e-mails from Google. People can’t take a win.
sudneo@lemmy.world 11 months ago
To be honest, not a great argument, considering that the hidden magic that Google and a handful of big players do, specifically in relation to spam, is what made emails substantially an oligopoly. Today if you want to run an email server, you need to jump 20 hoops to hope your email will ever reach the mailbox of someone on Gmail. Emails were supposed to be a distributed protocol too…
misk@sopuli.xyz 11 months ago
How does defederating prevent that from happening anyway?
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
He already is, this is all open? They will include people’s numbers in their “awesome wave of the future” and I don’t want that. The more people ignore them and isolate them, the more they won’t have power over everyone.
Aatube@kbin.social 11 months ago
What are “people’s numbers”? What power would they have if we didn’t defederate?
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Dude, facebook is evil, we all know that. I have no idea how they plan to take over the fediverse, but they’re planning it. Do you remember when they first announced and then everyone suddenly started calling it the threadiverse? They have plans, hold on to your seat.
sour@kbin.social 11 months ago
they have more influence
Draconic_NEO@lemmy.world 11 months ago
You mean as instance blocking? Because the Lemmy devs have stated that it’s not going to work the way everybody’s assuming it’s going to work.
So far the way that it’s been laid out it’ll only block communities on that Lemmy Instance, users will not be filtered.
That’s ignoring the fact that Lemmy’s blocking system is already flawed in it’s design and isn’t really an effective tool against malicious users.
So we really shouldn’t treat blocking even of instances as personal defederation, because it isn’t and unless something really changes and Lemmy’s development it never will be. You can on Mastodon because Mastodon’s blocking system is much harsher as well as the fact that federation highly depends on following, but lemmy works much differently and also has a significantly weaker blocking system (I should also add it does not respect mastodon’s blocking system) so because of that being able to block instances should not and cannot be considered an alternative to defederation, especially when it comes to malicious instances.
meldrik@lemmy.wtf 11 months ago
I see it as an opportunity to tell people on Threads to leave Threads and use an open platform, such as Mastodon, instead. Then eventually Threads will shut down, because everyone moved :D
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Won’t they have control over their instance though? I’m sure they’re going to run it like Reddit and shadow ban the shit out of their users and also not let them see certain stuff…
Kbin_space_program@kbin.social 11 months ago
Far more likely to lean on their infrastructure advantage and add things like image and video hosting on-platform that the Fediverse can't do now.
Then oncensecured, they can defederate from the actual fediverse and take the whole thing private.
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
or all of the above.
Feathercrown@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Ok but we wouldn’t really be losing anyone though, just threads users who wouldn’t have been here anyways
sour@kbin.social 11 months ago
people don’t join because complicated