this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
119 points (87.9% liked)

Fediverse

27506 readers
1140 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 61 points 4 months ago

Maybe infinite growth doesn’t need to be the goal.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 4 months ago (4 children)

The core idea of the fediverse is the same as democracy - that nobody should control the whole. Both are similar enough to allow comparisons.

Threads in the Fediverse is like a powerful dictatorship trying to "deepen its bonds" with a small but democratic government. The dictatorship will eventually exploit the power asymmetry to control the democracy, direct or indirectly, effectively erasing it. In that situation, the best approach is to simply not play along the dictatorship. (Defederate Threads.)

Another threat to democracy is internal: the centralisation of control over the whole into a few hands. In the case of the Fediverse, this is the reliance on central systems (front-end software, back-end software, instances, discovery systems, etc.). I see what the author proposes as a "Universal Declaration on Fediverse Rights" as, potentially, a new mechanism enabling those central systems - who gets to decide what goes in that declaration?

So yes, I think that instances should defederate Threads and encourage other instances to do so. However, they should not do it too hard, to the point that you're effectively dictating what others should be doing.

An important detail is that the author falls into the fallacy of conflating epistemic and moral matters. This is specially explicit here:

Because without believing in the existence of a objective truth (which they don’t, because they attribute themselves to moral relativism),

That fallacy has a deep impact across the text because the author believes that people can eventually agree on moral grounds based on reason. Often they don't - because it depends on the moral premises that each adopt, and moral premises are not true/false matters to begin with.

the actual problem is that the Fediverse is internally shattered and cannot agree on anything, including basic moral rules and principles.

That is not a problem. That's a feature.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 4 months ago (4 children)

It might have been fake, but weren’t there already reports of Meta blocking links/tags in relation to pixelfed?

If it’s true, they’ve already proven to be a bad faith actor. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re already scraping data from every other instance that federates with them.

At the end of the day, one side will be right. My moneys on the anti-threads side.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago

I don't like the "they haven't done anything bad yet" argument for staying federated, since there are much better reasons for not doing so. They either have already, and we aren't talking about it yet (ex. downranking fediverse content, those closed door meetings with admins), or they are going to once they need to extract a profit.

I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re already scraping data from every other instance that federates with them.

I would be surprised if they aren't already, and they're likely scraping data from the defederated instances as well.

I think microblog instances should stay federated because that's the best way to fight against threads. (longer discussion here: https://lemmy.ca/post/11771031)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

but weren’t there already reports of Meta blocking links/tags in relation to pixelfed?

Much more likely a result of Meta's notoriously shitty auto moderation algorithms than anything nefarious. I promise Meta is not risking the bad press and potential legal litigation to censor a service with 22k MAU.

they’ve already proven to be a bad faith actor.

They've done this for decades.

I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re already scraping data from every other instance that federates with them.

I don't know why people keep spreading this nonsense. If your instance is publicly visible (which it is) then Meta is likely already scraping it. They do not need federation to do that.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

How is that any different than the weekly defederatiosns here?

[–] [email protected] 31 points 4 months ago (4 children)

I don’t think it can but hear me out for a second. How about we just don’t grow? We’re not beholden to stock owners needing to see growth year over year. Can we just be happy with what we have?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

100% agree with you. Growth must not be the goal, maybe a byproduct. Focusing on growth will eventually compromise the quality of our experience.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

Absolutely agree with you as well. Natural growth as a byproduct would mean that those that wish to stay in the fediverse like what the see and stay with the community.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago

We will absolutely grow. But „organically“ as every other community that stays healthy does. Most people are just used to the inflated expectations that start ups have.

But yes, I dont see a reason to force growth, especially not with meta.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't think it needs to be our goal, but I think if the fediverse gets popular, we should let it grow. I see this place as an infinite green space for people to come and feel free to discuss their interests. Lemmy's communities ensure that it scales, because you only join ones that interest you. Then the community can enforce whatever spirit of discussion it wants to maintain and people can create another community if they want to try something different.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

My thoughts exactly. Growth is a byproduct of quality. Similarly, if the Fediverse grows too much and quality starts to slip, we should also let it shrink until quality comes back. I think our aim should be quality, and anything else is just a side effect.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes. The argument that we need to grow is a capitalistic one imo. This isn’t a capitalistic platform afaik. Small communities are naturally better, I think.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Plenty of non-capitalist organizations also seek to grow.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Yes, but organic growth has its limits unlike capitalistic growth. We can’t grow infinitely and if we grow fast, that growth might be gone as quickly as it arrived.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago (8 children)

Now we are trying to make a less obvious headlines to push pro meta propaganda, right?

We, the signees of the fedipact are not in fear. We know that meta has a horiffic track record of both human rights violations and data security violations.

Its actually the core reason why I decided to make a new community at [email protected]. Those who think that corporate greed and shareholder primacy are cancer in our society are very welcome.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 months ago (15 children)

Meta’s moral shortcomings are even more reasons to federate with them and try to win over users and pressure Meta to implement better digital rights as well.

"The terrorists moral shortcomings are even more reasons to negotiate with them and try to win them over."

Don't negotiate with terrorists.

Also the article sets up defederation from Meta as if it doesn't do anything. I don't think that's true though.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The typo in the title is really jarring for me. It's losing, with a single o 🥹

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

It's nice to let your soul loose once in a while...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Yeah same. I know what they mean but it’s not what’s there and it’s hard to take it seriously 🙈

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago

It can't. But that was never the intention. Soul was never the intention. The intention was reducing reliance on proprietary and cancerous platforms.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago

I mean there are a shitload of reasons to not federate with Threads, but I feel like “it will federate ads to your server” is kinda the only one I should need to mention.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (2 children)

We need some basic rules,

  1. No single direction federation
  2. Users own their content and can licence it as they feel fit

With these 2 it would be hard to fuck up

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Users "owning" their content in that way would be the instant death of the Fediverse. If anyone can put whatever nonsense license terms they want on each individual comment or post, how could that chaos possibly be federated?

A better approach would be to recognize that if you're posting your words up on a giant billboard you're not going to be able to control who sees them.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Users "owning" their content in that way would be the instant death of the Fediverse. If anyone can put whatever nonsense license terms they want on each individual comment or post, how could that chaos possibly be federated?

A better approach would be to recognize that if you're posting your words up on a giant billboard you're not going to be able to control who sees them.

Would quotes fall under fair use or copyright infringement?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Is there single direction federation right now? I don't think there is?

Also it would probably be more realistic for instances to put a default license on content. Users don't want to bother choosing a license and most users wouldn't even know what that means.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

100% have instance user defaults etc those who want to custpmise further can do so its already part of peertube and pixelfed.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

how can the Fediverse grow without loosing its soul in the process?

It can't? Rather obvious that the "soul" of a community is defined by it's members and the bigger the community the more mainstream this soul will become. Maybe the federation mechanic offers some solutions here, but that remains to be seen.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Many people like simplistic garbage. You can't convince them to like something better, as that creates demands on them to grow as a person, when they likely have other priorities in their lives that demand their attention more forcefully.

This is why McDonalds is the worlds most successful restaurant. Not because it is good, but because it is undemanding.

So, when people think we can pull users from the McDonalds crowd with superior quality, it just makes me laugh.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Are you sure you don't mean a Universal Declaration of Fediverse Independence from Reddit, Threads, and Twitter/X?

load more comments
view more: next ›