Bloonface

I’ve always been underwhelmed with DuckDuckGo as a search engine, and for context on that remark I use Bing as my main search engine.

That article has been posted several times and does not explain how Google “destroyed” XMPP - it assumes that XMPP was some hot shit everyone was using before Google and Facebook picked it up, when in reality it was used by next to nobody, most people who used it with Google or Facebook were just using it to talk to other Google or Facebook users, XMPP doesn’t support a lot of features that consumers now expect in messaging, and since Google and Facebook dropped it it has returned to being a niche FOSS thing - only now its advocates blame Google and Facebook for its failure rather than the fact it’s not a very good protocol and nobody uses it.

Not stellar? We’re having this conversation, aren’t we?

The fact that I (nerd that knows all sorts of shit about fedi and is interested in tech topics) am able to use Kbin/fedi to converse with other nerds that know about fedi and are interested in tech does not mean that the fediverse is a storming success.

I can have a conversation with one other person using tin cans and string. This does not mean that tin cans and string are the future of telecommunications.

In reality the people who I have tried to get on here who do not fall in that category were either disinterested from the start, were turned off by the complexity of how it works or stopped coming on it when it turned out there was nothing for them here.

I have read that and been linked that multiple times.

I responded to it here: https://finecity.social/notes/9gcoisoofl

tl;dr: Facebook and Google didn’t “destroy” XMPP. XMPP was used by basically nobody before Facebook and Google picked it up, and after they dropped it again XMPP is still used by basically nobody. Its spec also doesn’t include support for features that consumers expect to have in messaging software, which is part of why nobody uses it.

Facebook didn’t “destroy” XMPP. XMPP was a tiny messaging protocol nobody used, Facebook picked it up for a bit, stopped using it after a while, and then XMPP returned to being a tiny messaging protocol nobody used.

People are acting like Jabber was hot shit when Facebook picked it up, and its present state of irrelevance is because of big bad Zuck. No, no fucker used Jabber and it saw basically no mainstream adoption until Facebook and Google got involved, and as soon as Facebook and Google weren’t involved (as it turns out that XMPP actually kind of sucks and its unique features are things end users don’t care about) it returned to being a complete irrelevance. A well-intentioned irrelevance, to be sure, but an irrelevance.

Fediverse is the same, mutans mutandis. We’re tiny. I know it’s nice for us to psyche ourselves up and say that we’re going to destroy the big bad corporate media! but in reality we are a niche constellation of social networks that has literally 0.1% of Facebook’s user base and whose adoption has been, shall we say, not stellar.

the masses pick their form of fediverse rather than the one not controlled by big tech.

You say this as if the masses are currently interested in fediverse in general, and give a shit about whether it’s controlled by big tech or not.

Fact is most people don’t know about fedi and a great deal of those who do don’t care, and the only chance you’ll get them anywhere near a fediverse service if someone (be that Meta, or anyone else) wraps it up in a little bow for them and delivers it to them.

My view is if they did do that last thing, we’d be in exactly the same place as we were when we started - with “fediverse” as a tiny niche social network mainly populated by nerds, off to the side of all the others.

I think people have kind of failed to keep a sense of scale here - fedi has something like 2million active users, Facebook has a thousand times as many. We are quite literally a rounding error.

Most people who use social media disagree, and unfortunately for you, it’s their opinions that matter most as to whether they use a given social media platform.

I don’t really care to follow celebrities and athletes either, but I recognise at least that I am in a minority.

That statement is refreshingly sane. Really sick of the amount of heat over this situation and the lack of light.

Yeah, I’m “defending” Facebook by pointing out that people keep letting 2 + 2 = 57845789478945 and that many of the “risks” being talked about are simply imaginary, technically impossible and/or do not require Meta to start an instance to materialise.

The technical details rather matter when people are coming up with random nonsense and/or don’t actually seem to understand the nature of the platform they’re coming to the defence of.

I don’t trust Meta. I don’t like Meta. That doesn’t mean I need to also accept as true random confabulations about people being paid off and data being scraped for ends that don’t make any sense. There’s been a whole heap of heat around this subject and basically no light.

Wow so in your view anyone who just says “I think this isn’t a big deal and it’ll be fine” has been paid off?

Regardless of the fact that’s something with absolutely no evidence?

And you’re supposed to be the rational one here?

Some people on this thread have lost their damn minds.

OK, I’ve read that link and it still doesn’t really explain how exactly Meta intends to monetise other peoples’ posts - “collect data from and monetise”, how exactly are they going to monetise other peoples’ posts on other instances, when they have no ability to e.g. serve ads to those people?

I mean, it is just one bad actor.

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.

I don’t think that ActivityPub is having any present difficulty keeping itself niche without Facebook’s help - fedi has a total active user base of something like 2million, it’s very literally a rounding error on Meta’s user numbers. If there’s a battle here, Facebook is already winning.

For some reason, your link doesn’t work.

The second part of your comment doesn’t answer my question, nor would “they want our data!!!” explain why Meta would want or need to create an instance in order to get it, or how the “data” (what data? Your posts? The ones that ActivityPub syndicates to hundreds of other servers automatically? Do you know exactly which servers your posts are on at the moment?) of other users on other fedi instances could somehow be “monetised” by them.

God thank you, I swear some people fail to realise just how ActivityPub federation works!

Post something on fedi and you lose effective control over it; for all intents and purposes, it’s out there on hundreds of different servers who don’t have to respect your deletion requests, and it’s never coming back.

And to be perfectly honest, I’m more comfortable with Meta archiving all my shitposts than, I dunno, all the nazis.

I don’t want Facebook to have access to my account information, posts and comments.

I hate to break it to you, but the very nature of the fediverse (as a distributed network where posts and account information automatically get distributed to hundreds if not thousands of independent servers you may or may not be aware of, that do not necessarily have to honour your deletion requests) means that it would be absolutely trivial for either Facebook or any other random bad actor you could think of to have access to all of that, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.

This is an example I’ve given a few times, but if Meta were really just wanting to suck down data for the evulz (why they would do this I have absolutely no idea because it’s not like they could use that data for anything), they don’t need to start an instance amid a blaze of publicity. They could just go on Mastodon.social, sign up for a no-name account, grab an API key and suck down the contents of the fediverse in real time and that’s the end of it. The fediverse is not private and its very nature means that control over one’s own data is not quite as secure as ActivityPub advocates would like to pretend.

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?

Nothing, which should probably raise concerns around how good a standard ActivityPub actually is if all it takes to drive a truck through its intent is one bad actor.

It’d be entirely open to Meta to simply turn off federation, in the same way that Truth Social and Counter Social have.

But honestly if I were them, given the hostile reaction I’d probably just do that and knock the whole ActivityPub thing on the head. It feels like a waste of time when realistically they would get more people on Threads/P92 in one day than a million Musk-buying-Twitters could do with Mastodon. Then everyone is happy - no Meta on fedi, Meta gets its new exciting Twitter clone that it fully controls.

Put it this way - either they’re up to some form of non-specific evil, in which case they can probably achieve whatever goals they have far more concretely if they fully control the content on Threads, or they’re not and all this is actually in good faith, in which case they’re doing this for the benefit of a few hundred thousand fedi nerds who have reacted mostly with hostility and are going to block it on sight.

Once Meta gets their foot in the door, I guarantee they will try to bully the fediverse into doing things their way. Hard pass for me.

Can you give any reasonable by means in which they could do this and succeed?

So much of this stuff just sounds like infeasible conspiracy theories. If, hypothetically, Meta did do such a thing (somehow, still not clear how or frankly why?) all that it would mean is that anyone who disagreed could defederate from Meta, or would be defederated from Meta… which given half the servers in existence seem to want to defed them up front anyway, doesn’t seem to make any odds.

It’s all just very confusing hearing about these lurid ideas for things Meta could do with the fediverse that simply don’t make a lick of sense either in terms of motivation or implementation.

The flipside is that a standard’s not really open and a network founded on one isn’t really resilient if certain groups or corporates arbitrarily aren’t seen as “allowed” to use it, or if conversely a big corporate joining it is so toxic to the entire endeavour that it must be blocked on sight.

Chris Trottier, someone who I disagree with quite a lot and is a far bigger advocate for decentralisation as a public good than I am, is quite sanguine about P92 on those grounds.

Personally, I have no plans on my instances to submit P92 to any more stringent rules than I would with any other server blocks, that is I will give them exactly enough rope to hang themselves with.