this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2023
166 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37712 readers
206 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kool_newt@beehaw.org 40 points 1 year ago (17 children)

I sure hope there's a large group of servers that refuse to federate with servers run for profit. I didn't come to be a product and be manipulated with algorithms.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] emi@lemmy.blahaj.zone 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I think among other issues would be the Gmail-ification and iMessage-ification of the fediverse. What I mean by that is open standards like email are dominated today by many people using Gmail accounts as it is popular, “free”, and comes with a ton of features. Then google started “walling off their garden” by adding features that only work between gmail accounts. Similarly, apple also took the open standard SMS and started adding on features only available between other iPhones.

What we might see is some of the coolest features the fediverse has ever seen, but it will come at the cost of most users ignoring or dealing less with "irrelevant" things not on meta ran instances.

Hope we can resist such a change, but that is what I am concerned about.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] RMiddleton@kbin.social 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

List of Fediverse admins pledging to pre-block Meta instances: https://fedipact.online

It will be possible to have accounts on multiple instances, those that block Meta or federate with Meta. Then see what happens.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 0xtero@kbin.social 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Meta should be considered "harmful to humankind" (the list of atrocities is long) and I personally really don't want anything to do with them.

It was only matter of time before one of the big players took interest. Too bad it had to be Meta, but I don't think the others would have been much better.

The protocol itself isn't secure, so if anyone is worried about data harvesting, better log off now and never return. Meta and anyone else can do that already (and is probably doing) without having to roll in with their own instances.

Federating with someone who might have 1.2 billion MAUs is kinda scary because most protocol implementations (like Mastodon) are huge mess of bloat and inefficiencies under the hood. Someone paying their hosting out of their own pocket or trusting on kindness of strangers should be wary of the amount of data that's going to hit them with federation.

It's probably silly to expect "unified blocklist". Some people are fixated with the idea of growth and equate mass popularity with success. Others would rather "wait and see". Let them. The fediverse used to be much more homogeneous place 3-4 years ago, but we're nearing 10M users. That's simply too many people and voices for there to be just one response.

Luckily there doesn't need to be. The protocol allows for creation of spaces that don't have to interact with Meta.

[–] VanillaGorilla@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

The protocol itself isn't secure, so if anyone is worried about data harvesting, better log off now and never return

I'm more concerned about tracking tbh. But it's good to know they're planning to get a piece of the cake. I'm ready to block them.

[–] KarsicKarl@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Each instance admin decides which servers to block for themselves. If you visit the info pages of some systems they will list blocked systems, and there are a lot of them.

There are some very unsavoury communities out there. Blocking usually revolves around how effective moderation is.

As an example you can see a list of servers blocked by mastodonapp.uk on the About page.

https://mastodonapp.uk/about

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Mack@kbin.social 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm glad to see my server doesn't plan on federating with anything Meta hosts. I really don't like the 'wait and see' approach; Meta has shown its true colors time and time before, they have not earned their trust.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] noodlejetski@kbin.social 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

apparently some Mastodon admins got contacted by Meta and met with them after signing an NDA. I'm quite surprised how many Masto admins want to "just wait and see, maybe it's not gonna be that bad".

[–] BlackCoffee@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Meta and met with them after signing an NDA"

This should tell quite enough.

[–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What? Have you never worked with any company anywhere?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] quantum_mechanic@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (13 children)

I'd guess they were made an offer they couldn't refuse, ie money.

[–] KarsicKarl@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm guessing you haven't been on the #Fediverse very long so not picked up on the ethos of most of the folk who run the various instances.
Most are very protective of what they have created as a community and are definitely not in it for the money. Some are vehemently anti-capitalist.

There are many ways to get rich. Running an instance is not one of them.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Meta can never be trusted for anything. This could very easily be them trying to make tools to snuff out our "rebellion".

[–] kool_newt@beehaw.org 11 points 1 year ago

I will remove myself from any servers that federate with Meta.

[–] ZILtoid1991@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] jherazob@beehaw.org 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Absolutely! And given that they have a gazillion users they can willingly move around they can drown us out in a day if they want

[–] CynAq@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They will drown us out even if they don't want in that case. Them just using the service normally will flood all our feeds with posts from their service based on the sheer number of them.

[–] hazelnot@slrpnk.net 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That's why every instance worth its salt will defederate from day one

I expect to see zero posts from Facebook on my feed

[–] CynAq@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think (and hope) so too. Some pro leniency stances from mastodon bigwigs got me a little worried, that's all.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] davidhun@lemmy.sdf.org 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What iffing a possible scenario: Meta positions itself as an instance host, like how WordPress hosts blogs. "We'll take the headache out of setting up an instance, but you control everything else!" Free? Low cost? Removing the technical hurdles of hosting your own instance could entice a lot of would be admins to go this route.

It gives the illusion of control, but Meta still back channel collects all data.

[–] StrayCatFrump@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

...and then a couple years down the line when people have come to depend on it and the code base has become simpler due to the platform capabilities that their hosting provides (nobody is self-hosting anymore anyway, because Meta hosting is so simple, easy, and cheap/free), they'll start exercising more control anyway. "Come into compliance with our corporate terms of service and Community Server Guidelines™ or you'll lose our hosting. Oh shit, there's nowhere else for you to go for hosting anymore? Gosh, gee, shucks! What a shame."

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] asjmcguire@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

I'm personally happy to take a wait and see approach - because the whole point is that WE have the power. Meta HAVE to play by the rules, because if they don't they get defederated, and it's going to be very difficult for them to convince people to federate with them again after that. If lots of instances start defederating them, then their users are going to start complaining to them that they don't understand why they can talk to some people, but not other people. We have the power here folks.

EDIT: To add - the Fediverse is supposed to be an inclusive place.....

[–] polygon@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Well, the big issue here is that we sort of don't have the power you think we do.

What I mean is, say you have 10 servers. 7 are Lemmy, 3 are kbin. Great, each admin has control over those servers. Then you have Meta. They'll run 1 huge server. When the 10 other servers enable Federation, Meta now has 10 servers of content that isn't even on their own platform that they can sell. Your data will literally exist on the Meta server because your data is not contained within your instance/platform once it's Federated. Meta can then harvest the entire Fediverse for data like this. It's like an absolute wet dream for them. They don't even have to coax people to use their own platform!

Meta must be defederated the second they so much as dip a toe into the Fediverse or everything you've ever done, or do, on any ActivityHub platform will be scooped up and sold.

Edit: And it's even worse because all it takes is 1 server to Federate with Meta. If server A is Federated with your sever B, Meta can sill pull your data from server A they Federated with, even if your local server B has Defederated with Meta. This is a huge problem.

[–] asjmcguire@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Right... But....
ActivityPub is not a protected encrypted protocol. Everything anyone says on any service using ActivityPub can already be intercepted and harvested by anyone, even blocked instances. The defederating is software based. But for example if someone wanted they could simply do https://mastodon.social/tags/fediverse.rss and there were go, instant access to data from the Fediverse. You can query any Mastodon server for any hashtag you like. That's just one of many endpoints that will spit out Fediverse content.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] feduser934@vlemmy.net 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm confused about what kind of data you want to protect. If you mean your posts and comments, they are already publicly availible on the Internet. Meta doesn't need to make a activitypub app that gets federated with Lemmy to aggregate and sell this data.

Is there an other kind of data that is visible only to server administrators?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bandario@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I’m personally happy to take a wait and see approach

I am not. Facebook is largely responsible for poisoning the Well that is the internet. They have shown what they truly stand for. I am completely uninterested in any platform that has a single thing to do with that company.

EDIT: To add - the Fediverse is supposed to be an inclusive place…

Yes, inclusive of human beings. NOT large corporate interests. Your views are wrong and you should feel bad.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Stoneykins@lemmy.one 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I doubt they would be willing to let people host and control their own versions of federated facebook, and I'm wondering then what would make it "decentralized" exactly. Are they just using decentralized as a buzz word because they are using ActivityPub?

[–] garakanos@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 year ago

I don't trust Meta with anything, no way they will do this well

[–] emi@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Alternatively, imagine a world where the US government passed a "privacy bill of rights" and also required online platforms to be freely interchangeable via open protocols like ActivityPub.

Won't happen any time soon, and if you ask why, go read !news@beehaw.org for a little bit and come back.

[–] heavy@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago

The bad news aside, I think "privacy bill of rights" is the right way of thinking to get people and tech to a happier place.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] _thisdot@infosec.pub 11 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Why is this a bad thing? With all the email analogies, it’s a good thing to have bigger corporations involved

[–] frozengriever@beehaw.org 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

One issue with emails is that it's actually very difficult to self host email servers now as most of the bigger servers would automatically block unknown servers due to spam

[–] Maestro@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago

Exactly, I have given up on hosting my own. I now just pay for a decent email provider.

[–] jagoan@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

And some clients only support gmail, outlook, and a couple other big ones.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 18 points 1 year ago

Pretty much the entire bdsm community everywhere was outed on Facebook because folks carried cellphones to events and Facebook started suggesting friends to one another. Fifteen years ago privacy was sacrosanct and no one shared real life names unless they were very close. Now there is no point to trying to keep your identity secret and it sounds silly to introduce yourself as "Master Darkness" or whatever. I mean it sounded silly then, too, but everyone understood the necessity and it was situationally appropriate.

That is the danger of these large corporations. They aren't looking to serve the broad community - they are looking to exploit our social graph for profit regardless of the destruction in their wake.

[–] ZILtoid1991@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

I'm not against corporations wanting to set up their own instance for their own employees for them to interact with the Fediverse. I'm against data-collection, targeted advertisements, and corporate control.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Kaldo@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Wouldn't the "extend" part be problematic for them since it's W3C that define the protocol? If meta tries to change it it'd break compatibility with the rest of the federation. Not that it is that well defined right now, from what I've read even mastodon, kbin and lemmy all use AP in different ways, with upvotes/downvotes and post types being interpreted and used in different ways from the technical standpoint and then jury-rigged in frontend to look decent.

[–] daan@lemmy.vanoverloop.xyz 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The fact that W3C defines the protocol doesn't stop large companies from doing whatever they want. Have a look at Google: their web browser has become so widely adopted that Google effectively controls what is considered part of the spec, not W3C.

If Meta's platform grows to become the biggest fediverse project, they will control the spec and others will either have to follow, or risk dropping out. This is just like how Firefox is forced to follow Google to ensure all websites work properly on Firefox, even if these sites don't comply with the spec.

[–] hazelnot@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

others will either have to follow, or risk dropping out

Honestly, they should. Drop out of the spec if Facebook gains control over it, I mean. Fuck em, I don't care if I can't federate with Instagram, in fact I prefer it that way.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] trekkie1701c@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think the major issue that people might be concerned about is they might try to use a carrot to get people reliant on their instances.

Then they start making breaking changes and integrating proprietary stuff into it so that it's all much more closed source; and unless you're on an instance that they control, now suddenly a lot of the people who you used to be able to talk to on the Fediverse just can't be interacted with from your instance.

Like, the "World Wide Web" is the primary way people use to access the internet (we're using it now!); but despite the W3C you'll have commercial browsers that just don't play nice with the standards and some websites that wind up, because of that, only working in commercial browsers (Internet Explorer was infamous for this, and apparently Chromium has its issues with this as well). You further see websites that'll attract a huge userbase - using that open standard - and then kind of try to push everyone into using a non-WWW (but still internet!) app; meaning that what once you could have accessed from any web software you're now restricted to one single option that's beholden to the whims of that corporation. That's not to say that any of these is what Facebook will do (I'm not actually concerned that they're going to try to lock it behind an app; it's just an example that I can think of, especially given the recent Reddit drama - Reddit is also trying to kill their mobile site and effectively move people on mobile from the open WWW standard to an app, and have made mobile painful for awhile; and they're not the first site to add a "This site is better in our app" banner to mobile)

Of course, with the Fediverse they'd have a lot harder of a time doing that quickly without the cooperation of a few big instances. We aren't really sure what the people who spoke to them have agreed to, but we do know that they signed NDAs meaning there's something that Facebook doesn't want them to talk about.

Personally if this really was something good that we shouldn't be worried about? They should be able to be transparent about it. They're not, and that's concerning.

Honestly at the end of the day I'm just tired of people trying to make every single cent they can off of me. I want to live my life and have hobbies and talk to people and I'm tired of some greedy asshole taking a look at the tech and creativity that enables it and going "But how can I make money off of that?"

Some things shouldn't be about money.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CookieJarObserver@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The federation Software could implement a rule that its only allowed for non Comercial servers...

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›