this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2023
58 points (96.8% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35893 readers
1299 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Since news leaked out 2 days ago that Facebook has approached Mastodon developers and admins - requiring non-disclosure agreements first - the whole microverse (i.e. mastodon / pleroma etc, the micro-blogging part of fedi) has been talking about nothing but that and Facebook's imminent entry into the fediverse with an as yet not clearly defined entity called Barcelona or p92. This woud be very roughly comparable to Reddit saying they are going to federate with lemmy.

Yet here on lemmy I could only find a relatively small discussion.

https://kbin.social/m/fediverse/t/62958

Did the lemmyverse not know or just not care that much?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think meta is deliberately trying to fly under the radar until it too late. Several fedi communities have signed a 'pledge' saying they will actively block meta fedi content from their servers. (Similar to what most are already doing with Truth Social which is just another mastodon instance).

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Truth.social was actually never part of the Fediverse. It does use AcitivtyPub, but it doesn't federate with other instances: https://pocketnow.com/trump-truth-social-network-removes-most-freedom-friendly-features-fediverse/

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'll be honest, part of the reason I didn't come to the Fediverse earlier was I knew that Truth Social was "on" Mastodon. That discouraged me from investigating anything about it. When Reddit forced my hand and I looked into it further, I realized that avoiding the whole space because Truth Social ran on it was as absurd as avoiding the Internet because Fox News has a website.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If I'm not mistaken, I think Gab and Parler were also just re-branded ActivityPub Free Software (which sucks, but changing the license to prevent bad actors from using it would make it un-Free and therefore the cure would be worse than the disease). It just goes to show how those hypocrites are happy to claim to be superior in their rugged individualism, but actually just take from others instead of accomplishing anything themselves.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

undefined> hypocrites are happy to claim to be superior in their rugged individualism

Few Libertarians would be able to live, let along enjoy living, in Latin America outside of the rich neighborhoods and resorts.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Very interesting. I had no idea truth social used ActivityPub.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

I have no desire to interact with Facebook via Lemmy. Fuck that idea. And I think it's shady that there's Mastodon admins having secret meetings with Fuckerberg and his cronies and keeping the details secret. I think it's even worse to see Mastodon servers defederating with other servers just because their admins are critical of Meta. I feel bad for all the users who fled to Mastodon just to get away from Big Corporate Social Media just to be shushed and have their concerns handwaved by their Admin who seems bizarrely starstruck. It all leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think there's probably a reasonable explanation for this. The entire idea of Mastodon was built around getting away from companies like Meta. The admins arent going to just do a 180 on that.

It's more likely that Meta wants to do a similar thing as Truth Social and they are doing some consultation work. It would be good money and I don't blame them for taking it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Now that I think about it, Zuck does seem to have that effect on people. Does he actually have a mind-washing beam?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

It‘s called money.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Btw for those curious, Meta/FB approaching Mastodon admins is related to their in-development Project92/Threads possible Twitter-successor/competitor.

As it says at the start of the article, the intent is integrate ActivityPub in it in some way. Concerns are being raised for a variety of understandable possibilities some have mentioned here, or sort of alluded to, such as the corporate practice of Embracing, Extending, and Extinguishing. An idea being that Facebook may only be adopting ActivityPub to in some way screw everyone else using it over.

There's also the possibilities of questionable FB moderation practices permitting a flooding of linked instances with unmoderated FB garbage, scraping data (but since most of the fediverse stuff is public they...Don't really need their own public app to do that), and so on.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (17 children)

Upvoted for mentioning EEE. Meta has been really active in facilitating progress in the opensource community lately with their work on LLAMA, so I'm not surprised to hear they are involved elsewhere.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If it ends up bad for the overall environment of the fediverse, they'll just get defederated. A lot of the folks on Mastadon are getting worked up because the identity of this corner of the internet is decidedly anti-corporate. The thing is, it's just a few clicks for any instance-owner to completely isolate that project.

It could be a big deal (initially), or it could be a giant nothingburger. Or it could be a big deal that eventually turns into a nothingburger. Too soon to say, and way too soon to throw a fit over.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I'm all for anything that will provide an avenue for people to move off of corporate platforms. The average user doesn't care, but for some of the more tech-savvy FB/Insta/WhatsApp users who join it could be an interesting way to get their feet wet and maybe look to move to alternate platforms without leaving their contact behind completely.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I've heard something about it, but I guess Lemmies have been too busy with Reddit and just building up Lemmy communities, so this flew under the radar.

And honestly yea, why should we care? If they wanna make an instance, nobody is stopping them, but I hope nobody will want to federate with them. We've had enough of corporate socials lately.

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

The shocking news this week was that a couple of admins of large Mastodon instances were talking with Meta (under NDA's!), so it seems your hope (and mine) will be in vain.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is a risk that they start going the path of Microsoft's "Embrace, extend, extinguish". Although they probably wouldn't call an isolated instance "Lemmy", they could start as being federated. It might not even be obvious that it's run by Facebook.

But once they have a stranglehold on users/communities, they can pitch themselves as the "most complete" portal to Lemmy. Even if they completely defederate, they would have the instance people want to be on

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I heard Facebook was going to make something "built on Mastodon," but I didn't think federation was on the table too. I would think a company wouldn't want open federation, that sounds like a content moderation nightmare.

Likewise, if I ran a Mastodon server, I'd block them immediately. I don't use Facebook for a reason, and anyone who would just blindly let Facebook scoop up their community data is part of the problem.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I posted this on Mastodon, but I completely disagree with the idea of defederating from Meta instances on principal for the same reason I don't want my Fastmail account to stop interacting with Gmail accounts just because I feel Google is too corporate. That defeats the entire purpose of open standards and federated content. I should be able to choose to personally block content from Meta instances if I want to, but it's to the detriment of the community to fracture the Fediverse just because it's starting to grow large enough to attract attention from one of the big tech companies.

The reality is, a federated Meta service would at least initially grow the idea of federated social media as a whole, and likely drive traffic to Kbin/Lemmy/Mastodon from people who want to get off of the Meta platforms, but don't want to cut contact with their friends/coworkers/enemies entirely. While I probably wouldn't make an account, I'd be interested in at least being able to follow a few of my friends who I actually have interest in seeing updates from via my Masto/Kbin accounts.

And I'm aware of the embrace/extend/extinguish paradigm, but premature defederation isn't the answer there either.

I'm an advocate for federated content for convenience, not on principal alone.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I would think a company wouldn't want open federation, that sounds like a content moderation nightmare.

As if Facebook does actual moderation.

They'll build bots and ban users algorithmically, as usual.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And use the fediverse to spread metric shit tons of misinformation, lies, and garbage, all while scooping up Fediverse user data to sell.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's amazing seeing people who, after everything destructive action taken by these large corporations in these settings, still think maybe this time will magically be different and look to a corporation like it's their potential dad who they can't possibly survive let alone thrive without.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Even in here some are like "but we need the corporations".

I certainly don‘t and I‘m fully prepared to go to an instance which stands with me on this. Defederation from all big corporations (small ones are probably impossible to weed out and hopefully less dangerous but should be kept an eye on). If that makes my version of the fediverse smaller, so be it, I like small communities anyway.

They infiltrate these spaces, they take over and "make it better" to lure people, then they centralise and then when people become dependent they enshittify it to sell us, sell our data, sell anything we say and also sell shit to us which we don’t need. All the while condescendingly applying their "codes of conduct" on us to be allowed the privilege to make them money.

I repeat: I don‘t need them. I don‘t want them.

If the majority accept this and my small communities here die too, this will be the last time for me. I‘m just gonna live like a monk in some Austrian forest without internet. All I ever wanted is to talk to some cool people around the world about life and stuff I like.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Well said! I'm in complete agreement.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Eh, I use Mastodon and had no idea. I think it only matters to fediverse supporters who care about how it works. Not dismissing their concerns, Facebook is verifiably harmful to society and democracy, but for the average user this is not even on their radar.

I just opened Icecubes and scrolled the Federated timeline for a while. Not a mention of Facebook or Meta so far as this is concerned.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Given the "anyone can join in" nature of the fediverse, something like this was inevitable. I expected it to be at least be another couple of years, though.

There is potential good for this- a lot more developer resources going into this technology. And being open source software, there's a lot of ways we can potentially mitigate any damage if we have to. But... there's definitely a lot of ways this can go poorly as well.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Honestly, a lot of people might disagree but, corporate involvement is essential to FOSS projects surviving. The biggest FOSS project on the planet, Linux, is literally propped up by the biggest corporations on the planet.

The only potential issue I see here is maybe Meta forks ActivityPub and it becomes a "Meta Project" or some other fuckery. Outside of that I don't see any major issues with it. If we want ActivityPub to become something greater, we're going to need corporations on board. We have strong protections in place right now with a lot of the stuff that's being used being under strong copyleft licenses, and decentralization by nature is going to allow us to opt out of a lot of the ads and tracking that takes place by being forced to use an official app.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Linux is propped up by the corps that would lose if Linux went away. Not by Zuckerberg.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My problem is that they will have their own mods, their own communities and their own content. They will flood the federated space with their content and ban people and servers they don't like. It could easily centralise due to the sheer amount of users they bring and you will find it hard to find non Facebook based communities.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

While that is true, I anticipate that as a user you can choose to block all of that, just like I could have a reddit experience without r/conservative and without ads. We will always be able to find our niches, the size of which is determined by how many people share your values.

That being said, it's indeed up to us to make sure the largest communities don't end up on some weird fork that has ads.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I just truly don't give a shit about Twitter and Twitter-like sites.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My [paranoid] take: its vaporware designed to distract from the reddit fiasco, with plans fo mr meta to later absorb reddit instead of a reddit IPO. Reddit users are very different than Twitter users; the mass exodus didn’t happfrom Twitter to Mastodon, but looks very promising from reddit to lemmy/kbin. And it takes only one social media giant to crumble for the rest to follow. Once people are on Fediverse there is no going back

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

I think it has absolutely nothing to do with Reddit and everything to do with Twitter.
I think they scrambled to get something up and running quickly so they could get the wave of disgruntled Twitter users and jumpstart a new social media for them, and the only feasible option in 5 months was to use Mastodon/Activitypub to get there.
It will be interesting to see how much they give back to the community and if they federate.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

probably an unpopular opinion but facebook does also have a sort of track record of contributing to open source projects in ways that benefit everyone. facebook wanted to use subversion (or some other non-git source control) and contributed significantly so that it would work great for huge repositories like theirs. and facebook use memcached for their caches and contribute heavily so that they can use it more efficiently.

i’m also skeptical about end motivations, but in terms of being able to lend engineering effort to open source projects and helping to create a better product for all, it’s not such a bad idea.

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

At least it's not a bad idea until they leverage those tools they helped develop to takeover or dissolve services. I think it's about time we start learning our lesson with these big corps rather than trying to give them a chance.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They're behind React which has become pretty ubiquitous in the frontend dev space too.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Google has a similar reputation and yet XMPPs half rotten corpse is still floating down the river

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I've heard some rumours but I'm not worried.They can create an instance if they want, by fediverse nature if they do something nasty others would be able to defederste from them.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

On the one hand, embrace-extend-extinguish is a classic playbook for big evil companies.

  1. Facebook runs a version of mastodon or lemmy or whatever that is actually good
  2. People get on board because it's usable and ostensibly open
  3. Facebook invents features that, sadly, are not possible with ActivityPub (actual private messages come to mind)

On the other hand, it remains to be seen if anyone takes Meta up on a new offering. I'd have complete faith in the future of the open Internet if it was Google trying this.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I have no desire to interact with Facebook via Lemmy. Fuck that idea. And I think it's shady that there's Mastodon admins having secret meetings with Fuckerberg and his cronies and keeping the details secret. I think it's even worse to see Mastodon servers defederating with other servers just because their admins are critical of Meta. I feel bad for all the users who fled to Mastodon just to get away from Big Corporate Social Media just to be shushed and haave their concerns handwaved by their Admin who seems a little starstruck. It all leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I haven’t really heard that much about this. But I am very skeptical of any claims that Facebook is actually going to fedderate in good faith.

Obviously, it’ll be up to the administrators of the different instances whether to federate or not. So we’ll see

I also wonder how big the overlap is between people who would use a federated platform and those who would willingly use anything made by Facebook.

With that said, I’ll never say never, but I find the likelihood of this taking off to be slim to none

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›