I’m no ActivityPub expert, but what people more knowledgeable than me have pointed out is that this results in fragmenting the Fediverse, which ends up hurting it on the long run. I’d definitely not want to be on an instance that federates with Facebook, but I also wish none of the larger ones choose to do so.
Not exactly. What Facebook is expected to attempt here is an embrace, extend and extinguish strategy.
Here’s an article that goes into detail about why Facebook joining the Fediverse means the end of the Fediverse: https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html.
But that wasn’t my point. It’s not that I think that Facebook or Google cannot scrape Fediverse platforms/instances, it’s that even if they do, they cannot serve targeted ads based on our activity here.
We have different definitions for privacy. Since I’m active here, it should be clear that to me private doesn’t mean hidden. I like how the EFF put it, in their article on the Fediverse:
[T]he default with incumbent platforms is usually an all-or-nothing bargain where you accept a platform’s terms or delete your account. The privacy dashboards buried deep in the platform’s settings are a way to tinker in the margins, but even if you untick every box, the big commercial services still harvest vast amounts of your data. To rely on these major platforms is to lose critical autonomy over your privacy, your security, and your free expression.
Is it really fair to call Facebook just one bad actor? It’s one of the largest corporations in the world, has some of the largest social media and messaging platforms out there. In terms of resources, there are very few companies, let alone individuals or groups, that can compete with Facebook.
If you look at it in these terms, you understand that Facebook has an interest in making sure that ActivityPub doesn’t too large without Facebook having a say in it. If it could control the whole internet, I’m sure it would. So, no, I don’t agree with your framing of the issue.
It seems we have different priorities and concerns, and I can respect that.
I’m skeptical of Facebook, as I see the potential of it attempting to take over the Fediverse. As I’ve said in a different comment recently, Facebook’s business model goes against the Fediverse’s business model. And, in the long term, the Fediverse model has the potential to compete with larger for-profit corporations. And, as it has done in the past with the acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp, Facebook is now once again trying to prevent its demise by joining the Fediverse. Again, I’m not saying that the Fediverse is an existential threat to Facebook now, but it could be in the future. As people increasingly become weary of big corporations stealing their data, Facebook has to pretend that it’s changing. That it has learned from its past mistakes. And I just don’t buy it.
We’re here because these large corporations have failed us.
Yes, I wasn’t implying that Google or Facebook cannot see what we’re talking, when I mentioned the privacy concerns. I was referring to this data not being used to profile us for targeted ads.
first it will be a black hole ripping through the Fediverse.
Not if most instances choose not to federate with Facebook. People who want to be on a federated instance can sign up to that instance. The option to not federate is a build-in feature of the Fediverse, and I hope kbin.social takes advantage of that. If not, I’ll see myself out and look for an instance that does.
Here’s an article that helped me understand this issue better: https://ianbetteridge.com/2023/06/21/meta-and-mastodon-whats-really-on-peoples-minds/.
I’m honestly questioning if TheYang is reading our comments or if they are just spewing the same talking points regardless of the arguments presented to them. It’s baffling to see people so willing to embrace a corporation that has done nothing but exploit its users and their privacy.
Nobody’s saying that, in terms of user bases, the Fediverse is comparable to Facebook or Instagram. And it seems to me that you are misrepresenting why people here, myself included, don’t want our instances to federated with Facebook. It’s not that we don’t want bigger communities. Most of us have been on Facebook or Reddit and have given up on those bigger communities and adopted the Fediverse because it aligns with our values and privacy principles. Facebook does not. Its Fediverse platform will not suddenly be the opposite of what the company has been doing for more than a decade.
I think you’re missing the point. We are weary of Facebook’s decision to enter the Fediverse exactly because we know it sees the Fediverse as a long-term threat and it could try to extinguish it. While they at first would adopt open standards and protocols, what stops them from creating proprietary extensions and using those and its dominance and resources to make it difficult for users to switch to other platforms in the Fediverse?
How is it a win for me if I specifically signed up for a fediverse account to get away from data-hoarding, money-driven corporations like Facebook? I don’t want Facebook to have access to my account information, posts and comments. I think you’re missing the point about who this company is and the extent to which it is willing to go to get people’s data.
I don’t use any Facebook products for a reason, and I would not want to have to move to a different instance if the one I chose would federate with Meta. And the same goes for other data-hoarding companies out there, in case they try to enter this space.
that’s the way to go 🏴☠️
Thank you for this guide. I’ve deleted my posts and comments and requested the account to be deleted.
I’m still new to the fediverse, so please take what I say with a pinch of salt, but when you create an account on the fediverse, you can access all the federated instances. Which is why you’re seeing content from both kbin and lemmy instances.
Yeah, what I referred to was users who registered an account simply to create a magazine or community and then were never active on the platform at all. To me that’s the problem, not someone who intents to create content and interact with the users of the communities they’re registering.
I mostly see this from people who seem to forget why we’re here in the first place. You don’t want a platform with a plethora of ghost town-like communities.
Please don’t harass reddit employees who have no say in what the company does.
While I see what you mean about the names causing confusion, as I was confused myself at first, it took me very little time to adapt. Don’t underestimate the users, most won’t care too much about what ‘subreddits’ are called on each platform.
I see this already happening. Lots of magazines and communities created even though there’s virtually zero interest in them. I wonder how many of those mods are going to stick around long enough to actually moderate their communities/magazines. So, no, please don’t do this, it’s not helpful at all.
Both Twitter and Reddit have failed to become profitable. And Twitter’s in a far worse position right now than Reddit, because of its massive debt and lack of employees to fix or moderate issues. And since Reddit, who never had to pay for moderation, could not become profitable, it had to make some drastic changes toward that goal. Even if that dissatisfies users.
I was on Reddit for almost 10 years when I deleted my account. And while the platform will survive, it’s difficult to say the same about Twitter. Not only was it a far worse experience to be on the platform after Musk acquired it, but now it’s almost impossible to use it. People paying for the subscription have fewer issues, but I doubt that’s going to drive up subscriptions, as Musk most probably expects.