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

Technology

37738 readers
452 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 61 points 1 year ago (3 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.

[–] noodle@feddit.uk 31 points 1 year ago (10 children)

I don't see anything inherently wrong with servers that try to generate some kind of income (servers don't pay for themselves after all) but it's absolutely the right of every server to choose whether or not to federate with them.

I'd take issue with free labour (e.g. unpaid mods) on a profit-making server.

[–] Hexorg@beehaw.org 13 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I worry that through federation Meta will be able to track users of non-meta instances. Then you won’t even know you’re being traced

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Lockely@pawb.social 52 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Everyone who cares about their instance and the fediverse as a whole needs to defederate and block their instances as soon as they pop up.

[–] mobyduck648@beehaw.org 21 points 1 year ago

Yeah Meta are a scourge. If I had a friend who worked for them I’d look down on them the same if they worked for Big Tobacco or lobbying for the fossil fuel industry.

[–] P1r4nha@feddit.de 14 points 1 year ago

tbh, I doubt they would federate with anyone they don't have at least some control over. Like a contract or terms agreement or something.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] emi@lemmy.blahaj.zone 51 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (25 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 (25 replies)
[–] RMiddleton@kbin.social 38 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)
[–] Mack@kbin.social 35 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)
[–] 0xtero@kbin.social 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 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 12 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 33 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I hate how it seems like anytime there’s an alternative to big tech, it gets immediately co-opted. Either by the far right or by corporations.

[–] JaeSuis@beehaw.org 22 points 1 year ago

Capitalism only functions when it can absorb the things that can be an alternative to it.

[–] Dee_Imaginarium@beehaw.org 21 points 1 year ago (9 children)

At least with this structure we can still defederate from them and go on about our merry way.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] fckgwrhqq2yxrkt@beehaw.org 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Aren't those the same group?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ZILtoid1991@kbin.social 32 points 1 year ago (5 children)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] noodlejetski@kbin.social 28 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 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"Meta and met with them after signing an NDA"

This should tell quite enough.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] quantum_mechanic@kbin.social 14 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)
[–] davidhun@lemmy.sdf.org 25 points 1 year ago (8 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.

[–] Satiric_Weasel@beehaw.org 15 points 1 year ago

My money says you're right.

Time to learn how to host your own instance everybody.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 24 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If it begins looking that way, the (m/f)etaverse could always be defederated. There's no reason we need to connect with them.

[–] james@lemmy.jamesj999.co.uk 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 24 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 17 points 1 year ago

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

[–] asjmcguire@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (15 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 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (15 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.

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] jherazob@beehaw.org 22 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 12 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 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 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

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Stoneykins@lemmy.one 21 points 1 year ago (2 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?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] emi@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] garakanos@lemmy.zip 17 points 1 year ago

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

[–] _thisdot@infosec.pub 13 points 1 year ago (6 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 52 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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 21 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.

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