This article feels biased. "Stagnant growth"? There has been more Fediverse growth since November than in all of its lifetime. And even if growth was stagnant, the Fediverse is not a profit-driven...
Exemplary
This article feels biased.
That divide reflects different visions for the Fediverse’s future. One involves embracing Threads to bootstrap the network’s stagnant growth
"Stagnant growth"? There has been more Fediverse growth since November than in all of its lifetime. And even if growth was stagnant, the Fediverse is not a profit-driven company that needs growth. If anything, too much growth too fast would be detrimental to it.
Meta itself has a fickle history with open protocols. A decade ago, the company briefly embraced XMPP, an interoperable messaging protocol, along with competitors like Microsoft. But the effort was quickly abandoned.
That was a good occasion to talk about how Google basically Embraced-Exenteded-Extinguished XMPP, but no mention of if. EEE from Meta is, I think, the greatest fear of Fediverse users right now. We're afraid of losing our small open garden to the multibillion corporation building the tower of Sauron right next to it.
The Fediverse’s small size can feel intimate—but also isolating for people who want to connect with family and friends not interested in the arcana of distributed online services
No-one is forbidding those people to join other, "less technical" networks to keep in touch with their family. Not all networks need to have all internet users. Federation does not mean free for all.
I feel the goal of the fediverse should be to improve social media for all and considering the competition, it's impossible to do so without aiming to replace. Avoiding growth at all costs only...
And even if growth was stagnant, the Fediverse is not a profit-driven company that needs growth. If anything, too much growth too fast would be detrimental to it.
I feel the goal of the fediverse should be to improve social media for all and considering the competition, it's impossible to do so without aiming to replace. Avoiding growth at all costs only pushes the fediverse back.
Most users do not have anything interesting for them on fedi. There was a thread about this, but fedi users primarily talk about how great fedi is ; and when they're not, they talk about privacy and FOSS and eventually tech, because that's who cares about fedi. Because instances refuse to grow in population, the only people who stay are the ones trying to promote fedi. There's no one to actually use it as a platform and not just a cool oddity.
My point is that the avoidance of growth is what's detrimental. Even if things are hard to moderate like for beehaw.
Will this be an attempt at EEE ? Maybe. I don't know if it'll work considering attempts at ActivityPub extension will depend on compatibility with other platforms. In any case, though, the point of fedi is being able to access an instance's content from other instances, and move between them easily. It was, in a way, built for this purpose. It'll be fine, I think.
Now I don't know about Lemmy or kbin as I don't really use them. Reddit-like apps are having newer users right now, so I think it's normal discussions are focused on the platforms themselves. On...
but fedi users primarily talk about how great fedi is
There's no one to actually use it as a platform
Now I don't know about Lemmy or kbin as I don't really use them. Reddit-like apps are having newer users right now, so I think it's normal discussions are focused on the platforms themselves. On Mastodon, that was the case a few months ago, at the peak of the Twitter drama. Today, my feed is a lot more diverse.
they talk about privacy and FOSS and eventually tech, because that's who cares about fedi
Fair enough, a good part of who I follow falls into that category. That, and gaming. But those are subjects that interest me. I also follow a bunch of random artists, and people who mainly talk about mundane things going on in their lives.
Having a tech-focused population on newish/smallish platforms is unsurprising, that's how things have always worked. Truly I'm not against Fediverse growth, and I'd love to see it become as ubiquitous as Facebook and Twitter. But right now it's a small pond right next to the Meta ocean. If anything goes wrong, you won't grow your pond with that ocean; the ocean will assimilate the pond.
Which makes sense. If you want a social network, you need it to be social. The largest instances Lemmy and Beehaw attract new users so much because they're big. I feel many people who are...
Most users do not have anything interesting for them on fedi.
Which makes sense. If you want a social network, you need it to be social. The largest instances Lemmy and Beehaw attract new users so much because they're big.
I feel many people who are conceptually behind the fediverse push think there's intrinsic value in small instances, when the exact opposite is true. As far as user-side use of a social networks go, a single central instance is the ideal case: All content is immediately available with no extra clicks, no extra steps, no defederation, no nothing. You just use it.
And since people are overall lazy [citation needed], naturally we congragate to what gets the job done immediately. So the largest instances grow larger. Because this makes finding our friends and communities easy or sometimes even possible (if something is defederated for example).
I think small Lemmy instances don't really have less value than bigger ones: either way you're going to subscribe to the same subs that interest you. Discovery is not really an issue; admins can...
I think small Lemmy instances don't really have less value than bigger ones: either way you're going to subscribe to the same subs that interest you. Discovery is not really an issue; admins can seed their small instance, and users will anyway end up looking for subs, with the same results whatever the instance.
But microblogging apps like Mastodon rely a lot on local feeds to find interesting people to follow. A small instance is indeed worthless unless you know where you're going, or are migrating your followers/followings.
This is the contradiction at the heart of the fediverse, and the concept of federation as a whole. The entire tech model breaks, along with every aspect of the user experience, when you have many...
This is the contradiction at the heart of the fediverse, and the concept of federation as a whole. The entire tech model breaks, along with every aspect of the user experience, when you have many small micro-instances, and federation is pointless when you have one or two giant mono-instances.
What's the point of federation if the biggest chunk of admins choose to recursively defederate with anything that threatens your status as the admins of the biggest instances? Surely this is seen...
What's the point of federation if the biggest chunk of admins choose to recursively defederate with anything that threatens your status as the admins of the biggest instances? Surely this is seen as a cynical way to defend their status of being the biggest admins who can set the rules, as I don't believe that meta's moderation will be lacking
I don't think that's the point at all, I think it's protecting something against big powerful companies. For example see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish Also see...
Exemplary
I don't think that's the point at all, I think it's protecting something against big powerful companies.
Even if the admins didn't defederate, Facebook already said they will defederate from anyone that doesn't follow their ToS so it's almost the same end result. Does your instance allow nsfw content...
Even if the admins didn't defederate, Facebook already said they will defederate from anyone that doesn't follow their ToS so it's almost the same end result. Does your instance allow nsfw content (Note almost all major instances, including the biggest ones like pawoo and mastodon.social, all do) you're banned from threads already.
The major reason they want to do it is to keep Facebook away from their data. Nobody entirely knows what it means if a billion-dollar company with millions of users starts taking fediverse data.
The major reason they want to do it is to keep Facebook away from their data. Nobody entirely knows what it means if a billion-dollar company with millions of users starts taking fediverse data.
All the data is public, if any big tech company wants to mine fediverse data they can just create a fake server and just request it, on the other hand, the fediverse is getting all the data from...
All the data is public, if any big tech company wants to mine fediverse data they can just create a fake server and just request it, on the other hand, the fediverse is getting all the data from threads for free, it's a clearly imbalanced trade. You'll be able to essentially browse through threads with your own client that doesn't track every click you make all aggregated through your instance. You get all the content and Facebook doesn't get your location data.
I agree completely. It also is great publicity for the Fediverse as it will lead to a lot of people (who probably would never have otherwise) at least hearing about it, and maybe trying it out for...
I agree completely. It also is great publicity for the Fediverse as it will lead to a lot of people (who probably would never have otherwise) at least hearing about it, and maybe trying it out for a bit.
But the question then remains: What would be "great" for the Fediverse? If single system getting too big is a problem, but the entire system inherently benefits the user more the more are...
But the question then remains: What would be "great" for the Fediverse? If single system getting too big is a problem, but the entire system inherently benefits the user more the more are congregating on a single system, what would be the end goal other than one instance necessarily growing too big?
At best I can see these instances shutting down - as they're run privately and get too costly - and being replaced by something else, leading to a continuous cycle of moving accounts around that eventually drives everyone but the most hardcore users away. And that's the best result I can imagine.
If we want an open federation standard, we kinda have to accept that for-profit companies would be using it, too. We could still ban Meta, don't get me wrong, but that's a Meta-specific thing. On a general level big companies also using an open standard is where things ought to ultimately land, no?
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. I think the question is more towards if users are planning to contribute towards the growth of the Fediverse. If the users want to continue using...
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
I think the question is more towards if users are planning to contribute towards the growth of the Fediverse. If the users want to continue using Fediverse, at some point they should start contributing towards it's sustainability. Or as you mentioned, some for profit organization takes over it, slowly turns it into a more closed source system, and uses it for targetted advertisements.
Fair point. I would also be curious what the data use will look like with federation to what is basically a hundreds-of-millions federated server, but that's just a personal curiosity.
Fair point.
I would also be curious what the data use will look like with federation to what is basically a hundreds-of-millions federated server, but that's just a personal curiosity.
We actually do: https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html It is sad that there are so many people that did not learn from history.
That got posted here and is an incredibly likely outcome, but not yet a certainty, is my point. Given the history of open standards falling to tech giants, it's not an unreasonable expectation, I...
That got posted here and is an incredibly likely outcome, but not yet a certainty, is my point. Given the history of open standards falling to tech giants, it's not an unreasonable expectation, I think.
Well what did they think federation was going to do? I could run a mastodon instance and federate the data straight onto a digital billboard in town if I wanted to. The whole point of federation...
Nobody entirely knows what it means if a billion-dollar company with millions of users starts taking fediverse data
Well what did they think federation was going to do? I could run a mastodon instance and federate the data straight onto a digital billboard in town if I wanted to.
The whole point of federation is to shout the data out there loudly for anyone who wants it. And all speak the same language.
A little while ago this post on Tildes was made that links to an article called "How to Kill a Decentralised Network (such as the Fediverse). It specifically talks about Meta's plans and why your...
It specifically talks about Meta's plans and why your train of thought
What's the point of federation if the biggest chunk of admins choose to recursively defederate with anything that threatens your status as the admins of the biggest instances?
Is actually missing the point by a large margin. For most instance owners it isn't about loosing their status, it is about a huge party like meta being able to effectively take over and dictate the standard as they see fit.
It does this by talking about what happened to XMPP, specifically when google joined XMPP federation through talk. It is well worth a read if you are involved with all of this.
There are countless other examples of this sort of thing happening. So, just downplaying it as a some kind of ego thing to me seems either very disingenuous or misinformed to the point of having given it very little thought to begin with. I know this sounds a bit harsh, but people downplaying what drives people building communities (on reddit as mods, as federated instances owners, or else) to simply ego is such a tired trope at this point. In this case, it really should just take a few seconds of considering the size difference between mastadon instances and threads to get an inkling of why mastadon instances might be weary of federating with threads. If that really is not enough you only have to consider metas reputation to at the very least be able to jump past that bias of "oh it must be ego".
I simply saw it as not trusting coporate. Many people went to the fediverse precisely to avoid Meta. I'm sure there are some power-tripping admins, but that's also the beauty of the fediverse (in...
Surely this is seen as a cynical way to defend their status of being the biggest admins who can set the rules
I simply saw it as not trusting coporate. Many people went to the fediverse precisely to avoid Meta. I'm sure there are some power-tripping admins, but that's also the beauty of the fediverse (in theory); you disagree with an admin and you can migrate your account pretty easily.
This article feels biased.
"Stagnant growth"? There has been more Fediverse growth since November than in all of its lifetime. And even if growth was stagnant, the Fediverse is not a profit-driven company that needs growth. If anything, too much growth too fast would be detrimental to it.
That was a good occasion to talk about how Google basically Embraced-Exenteded-Extinguished XMPP, but no mention of if. EEE from Meta is, I think, the greatest fear of Fediverse users right now. We're afraid of losing our small open garden to the multibillion corporation building the tower of Sauron right next to it.
No-one is forbidding those people to join other, "less technical" networks to keep in touch with their family. Not all networks need to have all internet users. Federation does not mean free for all.
I feel the goal of the fediverse should be to improve social media for all and considering the competition, it's impossible to do so without aiming to replace. Avoiding growth at all costs only pushes the fediverse back.
Most users do not have anything interesting for them on fedi. There was a thread about this, but fedi users primarily talk about how great fedi is ; and when they're not, they talk about privacy and FOSS and eventually tech, because that's who cares about fedi. Because instances refuse to grow in population, the only people who stay are the ones trying to promote fedi. There's no one to actually use it as a platform and not just a cool oddity.
My point is that the avoidance of growth is what's detrimental. Even if things are hard to moderate like for beehaw.
Will this be an attempt at EEE ? Maybe. I don't know if it'll work considering attempts at ActivityPub extension will depend on compatibility with other platforms. In any case, though, the point of fedi is being able to access an instance's content from other instances, and move between them easily. It was, in a way, built for this purpose. It'll be fine, I think.
Now I don't know about Lemmy or kbin as I don't really use them. Reddit-like apps are having newer users right now, so I think it's normal discussions are focused on the platforms themselves. On Mastodon, that was the case a few months ago, at the peak of the Twitter drama. Today, my feed is a lot more diverse.
Fair enough, a good part of who I follow falls into that category. That, and gaming. But those are subjects that interest me. I also follow a bunch of random artists, and people who mainly talk about mundane things going on in their lives.
Having a tech-focused population on newish/smallish platforms is unsurprising, that's how things have always worked. Truly I'm not against Fediverse growth, and I'd love to see it become as ubiquitous as Facebook and Twitter. But right now it's a small pond right next to the Meta ocean. If anything goes wrong, you won't grow your pond with that ocean; the ocean will assimilate the pond.
Which makes sense. If you want a social network, you need it to be social. The largest instances Lemmy and Beehaw attract new users so much because they're big.
I feel many people who are conceptually behind the fediverse push think there's intrinsic value in small instances, when the exact opposite is true. As far as user-side use of a social networks go, a single central instance is the ideal case: All content is immediately available with no extra clicks, no extra steps, no defederation, no nothing. You just use it.
And since people are overall lazy [citation needed], naturally we congragate to what gets the job done immediately. So the largest instances grow larger. Because this makes finding our friends and communities easy or sometimes even possible (if something is defederated for example).
I think small Lemmy instances don't really have less value than bigger ones: either way you're going to subscribe to the same subs that interest you. Discovery is not really an issue; admins can seed their small instance, and users will anyway end up looking for subs, with the same results whatever the instance.
But microblogging apps like Mastodon rely a lot on local feeds to find interesting people to follow. A small instance is indeed worthless unless you know where you're going, or are migrating your followers/followings.
This is the contradiction at the heart of the fediverse, and the concept of federation as a whole. The entire tech model breaks, along with every aspect of the user experience, when you have many small micro-instances, and federation is pointless when you have one or two giant mono-instances.
What's the point of federation if the biggest chunk of admins choose to recursively defederate with anything that threatens your status as the admins of the biggest instances? Surely this is seen as a cynical way to defend their status of being the biggest admins who can set the rules, as I don't believe that meta's moderation will be lacking
I don't think that's the point at all, I think it's protecting something against big powerful companies.
For example see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
Also see https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
Even if the admins didn't defederate, Facebook already said they will defederate from anyone that doesn't follow their ToS so it's almost the same end result. Does your instance allow nsfw content (Note almost all major instances, including the biggest ones like pawoo and mastodon.social, all do) you're banned from threads already.
The major reason they want to do it is to keep Facebook away from their data. Nobody entirely knows what it means if a billion-dollar company with millions of users starts taking fediverse data.
All the data is public, if any big tech company wants to mine fediverse data they can just create a fake server and just request it, on the other hand, the fediverse is getting all the data from threads for free, it's a clearly imbalanced trade. You'll be able to essentially browse through threads with your own client that doesn't track every click you make all aggregated through your instance. You get all the content and Facebook doesn't get your location data.
I agree completely. It also is great publicity for the Fediverse as it will lead to a lot of people (who probably would never have otherwise) at least hearing about it, and maybe trying it out for a bit.
I don't think it will be great for Fediverse if Meta adopts the framework. Google's adoption of XMPP comes to mind as an example.
But the question then remains: What would be "great" for the Fediverse? If single system getting too big is a problem, but the entire system inherently benefits the user more the more are congregating on a single system, what would be the end goal other than one instance necessarily growing too big?
At best I can see these instances shutting down - as they're run privately and get too costly - and being replaced by something else, leading to a continuous cycle of moving accounts around that eventually drives everyone but the most hardcore users away. And that's the best result I can imagine.
If we want an open federation standard, we kinda have to accept that for-profit companies would be using it, too. We could still ban Meta, don't get me wrong, but that's a Meta-specific thing. On a general level big companies also using an open standard is where things ought to ultimately land, no?
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
I think the question is more towards if users are planning to contribute towards the growth of the Fediverse. If the users want to continue using Fediverse, at some point they should start contributing towards it's sustainability. Or as you mentioned, some for profit organization takes over it, slowly turns it into a more closed source system, and uses it for targetted advertisements.
Fair point.
I would also be curious what the data use will look like with federation to what is basically a hundreds-of-millions federated server, but that's just a personal curiosity.
We actually do: https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
It is sad that there are so many people that did not learn from history.
That got posted here and is an incredibly likely outcome, but not yet a certainty, is my point. Given the history of open standards falling to tech giants, it's not an unreasonable expectation, I think.
It’s content that’s being broadcasted out to the web. What data is Facebook getting that can’t just be crawled and scraped?
Well what did they think federation was going to do? I could run a mastodon instance and federate the data straight onto a digital billboard in town if I wanted to.
The whole point of federation is to shout the data out there loudly for anyone who wants it. And all speak the same language.
A little while ago this post on Tildes was made that links to an article called "How to Kill a Decentralised Network (such as the Fediverse).
It specifically talks about Meta's plans and why your train of thought
Is actually missing the point by a large margin. For most instance owners it isn't about loosing their status, it is about a huge party like meta being able to effectively take over and dictate the standard as they see fit.
It does this by talking about what happened to XMPP, specifically when google joined XMPP federation through talk. It is well worth a read if you are involved with all of this.
Here is another mastadon thread about it as well: https://social.coop/@loshmi/110594900719666868
There are countless other examples of this sort of thing happening. So, just downplaying it as a some kind of ego thing to me seems either very disingenuous or misinformed to the point of having given it very little thought to begin with. I know this sounds a bit harsh, but people downplaying what drives people building communities (on reddit as mods, as federated instances owners, or else) to simply ego is such a tired trope at this point. In this case, it really should just take a few seconds of considering the size difference between mastadon instances and threads to get an inkling of why mastadon instances might be weary of federating with threads. If that really is not enough you only have to consider metas reputation to at the very least be able to jump past that bias of "oh it must be ego".
I simply saw it as not trusting coporate. Many people went to the fediverse precisely to avoid Meta. I'm sure there are some power-tripping admins, but that's also the beauty of the fediverse (in theory); you disagree with an admin and you can migrate your account pretty easily.