this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
110 points (100.0% liked)

/kbin meta

6 readers
1 users here now

Magazine dedicated to discussions about the kbin itself. Provide feedback, ask questions, suggest improvements, and engage in conversations related to the platform organization, policies, features, and community dynamics. ---- * Roadmap 2023 * m/kbinDevlog * m/kbinDesign

founded 2 years ago
 

I would like to know if I can feel safe here, or if I should pack it up and start looking elsewhere sooner rather than later.

If the kbin staff have already made there intentions clear, please let me know.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rabbithole@kbin.social 153 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We (meaning the whole fediverse, all instances) need to be de-federating that crap immediately.

Nothing good will come from having Facebook streaming into here in anyway whatsoever.

The Fediverse as a whole needs to be a separate place so that people can leave places like that.

Also, if Facebook is allowed to "work with" the development of the fediverse at all, they absolutely will eventually destroy it for profit. And "working with" it absolutely includes them federating with it.

When their vast resources are taken into account, and their existing userbase also, they would rapidly become the main instance (or collection of, but probably just one) of the whole fediverse. Once that's them, they can use that position to dictate terms pretty hard.

Before you know it, everyone that would eventually have come here are there instead, and they're now the fediverse. They can also fork the software and leverage their Dev teams to make their fediverse vastly more polished... No donations needed on their fediverse, less bugs, everyone you know is already over there... Seem familiar?

How does that effect us who aren't there, how isn't it just the same thing as now? Our fediverse dies off because the users leave, instances close down through lack of population/need, before you know it there's nobody here and the idea just dies.

Literally been done before. The playbook is absolutely common knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 56 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The Fediverse as a whole needs to be a separate place so that people can leave places like that.

The beauty of the fediverse is precisely that it is not monolithic. Each instance can be different, have different policies and decide who it wants to federate with. Some instances will federate with anyone, some with most, some with a few, some with none.

The claim that that the fediverse needs to be a monolithic whole, where all instances walk in lock-step with each other is entirely at odds with the fediverse philosophy.

[–] duringoverflow@kbin.social 57 points 1 year ago (2 children)

this argument makes sense only if you're talking about defederating instances. It doesn't make sense here. The problem is not whether we want the users of meta's instances. The problem is whether we want a huge corp be part of the fediverse. And why are we talking about it? Because people are trying not being naive and believing that meta is here because they liked the ideas of a federated network and want to participate. Meta will cause more harm than good as it has already happened in the past in different technologies/projects.

[–] laurens@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This conversation has been going on Mastodon for a while now. The problem kind of boils down to the following: there are people who think Meta is a bad actor and having the literal entire rest of the fediverse defederating is the best way of dealing with that. And there are people who also agree that Meta is a bad actor, and think that partial defederation is the best way of dealing with it.

Its really hard to come (read: impossible) to come to a consensus on this, because part of the argument about what is a better tactical approach depends on knowing how Threads implements things like account portability, and this is currently unknown. Most people even assumed that Threads would not implement this at all, but Adam Mosseri just announced that this is an important feature, so who even knows.

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

The only thing naiive is the people in here thinking that defederating from Meta accomplishes anything whatsoever.

Oh boo hoo, meta's instance is shinier than ours, doesn't that mean users will leave? Yeah, look around, they already will and are leaving for Meta's platforms, they have more users on Threads in 24hrs than the Fediverse has had in it's entire life.

Nothing about defederating changes that.

[–] duringoverflow@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago (8 children)

the defederation has nothing to do with "reducing meta's number". The reason to defederate is so you're not playing their game with their own rules. Fediverse will gain absolutely nothing by playing meta's game.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rabbithole@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If this were just some problematic instance (or a group of them, even) I'd entirely agree with you, but this is Facebook, the damage that they're almost certainly planning and are entirely capable of requires (at least in my opinion), a different solution.

Please note that I'm suggesting this as an entirely unusual solution to a very unusual problem. Not as some sort of standard practice.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Xeelee@kbin.social 40 points 1 year ago

Fully agree. The reason I'm here is to escape corporate shitfuckery. if you expect anything other than more shitfuckery from Meta you're either a shill or hopelessly naive.

[–] sparseMatrix@kbin.social 77 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@Roundcat

Meta is facebook who engaged Cambridge Analytica to purchase our lives.

Not from us, but from them. Facebook literally sold out the world

Facebook nearly destroyed this country for a buck.

Fuck facebook. I don't want to avoid federating because I dont want them around; I want to avoid federating because anything I can do to starve them of every resource for growth that I possibly can is the best thing I can do about facebook.

[–] livus@kbin.social 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not only did Facebook allow incitement to genocide to be circulated on it for years while people begged it to stop, but after the genocide Facebook also actively impeded the international investigation into that genocide.

That's pretty much as low as you can go.

[–] kglitch@kglitch.social 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There are over 70 kbin instances. If kbin.social is not to your liking, you can find another. https://fedidb.org/software/kbin

https://kglitch.social has defederated from Meta (well, blocked the domains that meta is expected to use). Registrations are open.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PabloDiscobar@kbin.social 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Meta cannot harm you by federating. If they want your data that you posted on kbin then they already have it. They run curl and they can swallow all your posts and metadata associated. Whatever you post is given for free to everyone with an internet connection.

Also Meta probably will never federate since it involves a huge risk that they will end up hosting illegal data against their will.

edit: also think in legal terms, meta will never publish content on their site if a federated server hasn't signed a mountain of legal documents beforehand. It's simply not happening. I'm only speaking on a user level. If our admin adopts a pro-facebook stance then of course it's a different story.

edit: The more I read about this the more doubt I have about this story. It seems that kbin still hasn't signed the fedipact? It's becoming a big deal and it will affect kbin even if we adopt a neutral stance. There is in fact no more neutral stance. We should sign.

[–] Very_Bad_Janet@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Meta can harm us by federating - the server load alone would demolish Kbin and Lemmy. We were overwhelmed with just the recent sign ups from ex Redditors, how do you think Kbin and Lemmy could handle the firehose of Threads' data?

IG has 1B accounts. If each IG account makes a Threads account and chooses to automatically follow all of their IG follows that also have Threads accounts set up, while we were federated with Threads., Kbin and Lemmy instances would be done. ETA: I understand that it won't be all 1B users instantly appearing, and that it would require someone from the smaller instance subscribing to someone from Threads, but it would grow pretty rapidly I'd imagine.

We absolutely have to defederate from Threads just to stay up and be functional. It's not all about privacy.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] RestrictedAccount@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If they federate, we can scrape their data and view it without ads and redistribute it where they cannot track it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DarkThoughts@kbin.social 26 points 1 year ago (3 children)

We somehow defederated with the nsfw Lemmy instance over a big nothingburger.
If we stay connected with those hate groups however, then I'm out. That's where I draw my line for support.

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

I thought we defederated with nsfw because of technical issues with nsfw images not being blurred properly, not the rules issue?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] 0xtero@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would like to know if I can feel safe here

If you have privacy concerns, you should probably not post here for time being.

It is prototype software. Doesn't remove EXIF geotags from photos, for example and posts here are public (and indexed by webcrawlers). Treat this as "open Internet" for your safety/privacy purposes.

[–] Roundcat@kbin.social 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's not much of privacy I'm concerned about as much as community and visibility.

Meta is infamous for fostering insufferable users, meanwhile from what I have seen from kbin and lemmy, there is a lot more nuance and maturity in the communities here (for the most part) that I would hate to see overun by Thread users.

Secondly, it's one thing to be visible to the internet in general, but to have anything tied to Meta that they can scrape and sell is a concern to me. The fact that the fediverse is a prototype with vulnerabilities makes the likelihood of a company like Meta, who intentionally exploits vulnerabilities to harvest data, all the more likely.

Finally, almost every example of a large company joining a federation always ends with said company cannibalizing the federated networks, and I have no reason to believe Facebook won't do this. If I'm going to invest time and effort into making a community grow, I would rather not waste my time on a platform that is doomed to be consumed.

[–] 0xtero@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (43 children)

Meta is infamous for fostering insufferable users

With this I agree. 1.2bn users is way more noise than I want to experience and I will, personally block the domain. As a kbin user, you'll have the tools available for that as well.

Secondly, it's one thing to be visible to the internet in general, but to have anything tied to Meta that they can scrape and sell is a concern to me.

To think that the big companies that base their business models solely on datamining users already haven't been mining the shit out of our data is a bit naive, I think. They don't have to exploit vulnerabilities, make their presence known or launch huge products for it. All they (or anyone!) need is a $20/month linux VPS and a Mastodon installation. The fediverse does not have data privacy controls for content (beyond masking account e-mails/originator IPs).

Finally, almost every example of a large company joining a federation always ends with said company cannibalizing the federated networks

I agree. Threads got 10M signups yesterday and they haven't even launched officially yet. They're already larger than the entire fediverse.
Many people will switch to their app. And at some point, they will most likely make interoperability hard (so we have to adapt to their "bugs" instead of it being the other way around).

I just want to make clear that I'm in the "Defederate the shit out of them"-camp, but I also don't think the fediverse is a place that puts privacy first - if privacy is your concern, then my advice is to stay away from fedi. For now.

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

Blocking the domain will not block the users, so in that regard there is nothing you can do about 1.2bn users coming here.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (42 replies)
[–] EnglishMobster@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

So. In 1 day, Threads has gotten more users than all of Mastodon combined. My friends are on Threads. They're not coming to Mastodon. I've tried. I couldn't even convince my fiance to join me on Mastodon for longer than a day, and we live together.

How would you suppose I talk to my friends? By joining Meta? Or by staying with FOSS on the fediverse? Because when you say "everywhere needs to defederate from Meta" you're also saying "You shouldn't talk to your friends here, nor should your friends be able to talk to you."

Quite frankly - I really enjoy that I can both be here and still be in contact with my friends. Meta can't track me here (as much, I'm aware they can still siphon data but they could do that regardless). I'd much rather stay here if I can. But if given the chance to choose, I'm going to move to somewhere that federates with Threads. Not because I like Meta - I hate Zuck almost as much as I do Elon, which is quite a lot - but because I'd rather see and talk to my friends than be locked in with a bunch of rando control freaks jumping at shadows.

If the fedipact had it their way, anywhere that federated with Threads would in turn become defederated. This will create 2 separate fediverses. People will have to choose which one they spend time on - even if they have accounts on both sides, one will always be the "primary" account.

I posit that for many people, the "primary" account is going to be the one with their friends and interests. It's going to be the side with the influencers they follow. Simply, it's going to be the one that federates with Threads. The other side will slowly wither and die, as all the content dries up and people move to where the network effect is strongest.

You can argue that we need to defederate because of "embrace, extend, extinguish". Tell me: what is the end result of EEE? A diminished fediverse, where most people use the single app that has all the people and all the content. How is that different than the splintered fediverse caused by the fedipact?

It's really not much different at all. If Meta goes for EEE, there is no stopping them. If the fedipact takes hold and rabidly defederated anywhere that glances at Meta, then the fediverse's network effect will shatter. The fedipact will simply backfire and shoot themselves in the foot as people choose the side with the larger network effect. It's ridiculous that the idea has gotten as much traction as it has; the fedipact's best-case scenario is worse than the worst-case of EEE.

If a bunch of people want to live in small segmented communities, that's on them. Beehaw is right there if you want it; that's what Beehaw aspires for. But large, general-purpose instances shouldn't bow to the whims of a loud minority that don't even realize the repercussions of their agitations.

The fediverse is at its strongest when we federate. That's what makes this place special. We've agreed that walled gardens are bad, and the one time that we have a chance to get a bunch of "normal" users on the fediverse everyone panics because they're afraid of EEE.

The fedipact isn't going to stop EEE. If Meta wants to do EEE, they're going to do it with or without the fedipact. We don't even know for sure that EEE will happen - it's true that Meta is a business, but there are plenty of open protocols you use every day that never got hit by EEE. L

All the fedipact will do is hurt people who want to use free software to see their friends so this loud minority can exercise their control over everyone.

You have the power to block the domain here if that's what you want to do. Please don't let your personal fears ruin the experience of others.

[–] zalack@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I'm okay with a small bubble of randos as my Fediverse, I don't need -- or want -- my social media to be "everybody".

I'm in a discord with my friends and that's pretty much all I need.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ainmosni@berlin.social 11 points 1 year ago (17 children)

@EnglishMobster @0xtero @Roundcat So what you're saying is "ignore all the horrible shit Facebook as done, they have more people and that allows them to do anything they want" ?

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] techviator@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A lot of the FUD regarding #Threads joining the #Fediverse has been put to sleep by #Mastodon on this blog post:
https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2023/07/what-to-know-about-threads/

"The fact that large platforms are adopting ActivityPub is not only validation of the movement towards decentralized social media, but a path forward for people locked into these platforms to switch to better providers."

Also @daringfireball made this blog post that I agree with:
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2023/06/19/not-that-kind-of-open

"the idea that administrators of Mastodon/Fediverse instances should pledge to preemptively block Facebook’s imminent Twitter-like ActivityPub service (purportedly named Threads) strikes me as petty and deliberately insular. I don’t like Facebook, the company, and I’ve never seen the appeal of Facebook, the product (a.k.a. “the blue app”). But there are literally billions of good people who use their services. Why cut them off from the open ActivityPub social world?"

[–] Fluid@aussie.zone 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are a lot of good reasons to not let corporate media join the fediverse: https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html

[–] techviator@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I understand, and I do remember the XMPP debacle, but I also remember that back then people trusted Google and their do-no-harm motto, and they really wanted them to lead in the real-time voice/video chat arena, and in order to make it Google made some protocol desitions that broke away from XMPP.

This time around we don’t trust Big Tech and will not try to adjust to their ways, if they want to they can embrace ActivityPub or not. The rest of the Fediverse will not try to apply their tactics or monetization to the protocol. Either they adhere to the stardard, or their users will have no compatibilty with the rest of the Fediverse.

I am not suggesting we all embrace them and try to make them feel welcome, but let's not close our instances alltogether to them, let each person decide for themself if they want to follow people from their instance or not.

[–] mrpants@midwest.social 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Servers decide instances they federate with, not users.

Users decide servers based partly on what the server federates with.

Leaving the what servers to view/block decision up to every user is a very cumbersome solution to a problem that is already elegantly solved.

[–] a-man-from-earth@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Meta isn't federating yet, so we have time to discuss and make a decision.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Perry@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Meta federating would be the best thing to ever happen to the Fediverse. Face it, Fediverse is not by its own in a billion years going to somehow kill off Meta. The vast, vast majority of users are going to stay with traditional social media, there’s nothing we can do about that.

However, Meta et al actually joining the Fediverse means we won. The vast majority will still stay with Meta’s services, but no one here has to. This is the closest we will ever get to a truly open standard for social media.

I don’t want to have an account with Meta or Twitter or whatever, but I, like most people, want to be able to communicate with the people who do.

As I see it, there are only two ways forward for the Fediverse:

  1. Traditional SoMe stays closed and inaccessible for anyone who doesn’t want to sell their soul to Meta. The vast majority of people still use traditional SoMe and the Fediverse stays a minuscule hobby project at best. Even here, most people will probably also have accounts on the traditional platforms in order to not cut oneself off from the world.

  2. Traditional SoMe embraces open standards and anyone who cares can choose to use whatever service they want. The vast majority of people still use traditional SoMe, but the Fediverse now has access to billions of people (or not, you can choose yourself) without having to become a commodity that Meta can sell to advertisers.

Ideally, instead of having to register a Meta account, I can just stay with Kbin.social without losing access to the content.

[–] nevernevermore@kbin.social 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

nah fuck all that. meta has never acted in good faith; to assume they'll be anything other than anticompetitive is naive

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Traditional SoMe embraces open standards

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh man that's a good one

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] stevecrox@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Why would KBin be unsafe?

Federation works by instances (e.g. kbin.social) registering an interest (subscribe/follow) in a specific magazine or person on other instances.

That means content is only brought into an instance that members of that instance are interested in (its the same with lemmy instances, we don't see everything).

Similarly on kbin users can block individuals, magazines or whole domains. So even if kbin.social does federate with meta you don't have to see/interact with it.

For instance I respect kbin users might want content from lemmy.ml, as the people who run it are tankies I have no interest in anything from that instance and block the domain.

I have no issues with part of the fediverse walling itself off from meta but remaining in contact with other instances. Similar to how beehaw defederated from lemmy.world but kbin could see beehaw and lemmy.world.

I would treat meta like any other instance, if its a source of headache then deferate.

The Embrace, Extend Extinguish argument makes no sense.

Take C#, many years ago Microsoft wanted to build its own Java JDK. As part of that they added Microsoft specific extensions. Sun said that wasn't acceptable. Microsoft didn't just stop, the renamed it C# and launched the product.

Everyone agreeing to defederate from meta won't mean they stop. It won't prevent EEE.

The best way to prevent EEE is given in our example. Java had a huge userbase who simply weren't interested in migrating.

So you need to encourage organisations to deploy KBin/Lemmy instances which integrate with the fediverse. That gives them reach and when Meta tries EEE they cut off content their users want. So it forces them to be a good citizen.

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

If ans when it federates, you have a handy-dandy button that lets you block instances.

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

As far as I know that doesn't work. I know I've blocked feddit.de but still get it on my front page.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›