A person going by Bloonface (https://mastodon.social/@Bloonface/110605013435138542#.) put it perfectly. People complain more people should dump centralization and move to Mastodon, but every time they try they get shouted at for doing it wrong.
Posting too much. Using hashtags. Not using hashtags. Not adding alt descriptions. Not using content warnings. Using content warnings. Using them, but for the wrong thing. Joining the big servers. Joining the bad servers. Talking about Twitter. Not calling it ‘the bird site’. Not being pro-(whatever) enough. Demanding people do any of the above.
A number of people I like went to Mastodon, I enjoy I can keep reading their stuff. And I get the problems with Bluesky. But boy do I wish I had an invite, it sounds so much less contentious and more fun.
> People complain more people should dump centralization and move to Mastodon, but every time they try they get shouted at for doing it wrong.
It seems 100% reasonable to suspect the motives of a company with two massive walled-garden social networks under their belt. The fediverse doesn't need them, and there's no obvious upside of federation for them.
Besides, on my list of issues with Facebook and Instagram, "not being accessible from the wider internet" isn't even on my top 10. If I wanted to read posts from those networks, I know where to find them.
Mastodon's biggest problem is if you want to join a general purpose server with a level headed administrator you only have a couple of options. Most servers resemble joining an irc channel or phpbb forum where a mod will ban you for making fun of their favorite video game.
The Fediverse has been successful at attracting techies with time and money, but instead of them using it to help a mid size general public instance they use it to make their own server where they can be the ones imposing the bullshit bans.
> A number of people I like went to Mastodon, I enjoy I can keep reading their stuff. And I get the problems with Bluesky. But boy do I wish I had an invite, it sounds so much less contentious and more fun.
I've found Bluesky to be uninteresting, and my feed is also pretty dead now. People sign up and then abandon it. I don't bother checking much anymore or handing out the invite codes that I'm accumulating.
Ironically, even the people who say that Mastodon is a dead end and Bluesky is more promising are posting more on Mastodon than on Blueksy. ;-)
Because we learned from this before with their support for XMPP in Messenger (which no longer exists)? And plenty of other examples for for-profit corporations initially embracing open standards/protocols that might threaten their moat?
Facebook has already embraced, extended, and extinguished RSS. The expectation is that they will do the same with ActivityPub if given a chance.
They are also well-known for tracking users across the entire internet and maintaining "shadow profiles" of people who don't even use their services. Anyone with privacy concerns[1] would not want them on the same network as themselves.
Their moderation is shit, they are happy to encourage arguments as long as they get ad views out of it. The Fediverse is generally supported by funds donated by site admins and users, who often would rather not have a place full of arguments. [2]
1: arguably anyone with privacy concerns might do well to avoid ActivityPub anyway but...
2: call it a "filter bubble" if you like, I'd rather be in one curated by myself and/or a friend than one curated by an amoral corporation
If the end state of the fediverse is the same incumbent social networks running the federated social media sphere just like they run their walled gardens, what would've been the point of the entire exercise?
Meta already has their social networks. The fediverse doesn't need them, and I don't see why they "need" the fediverse either - unless their plan is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
>Blocking one of the biggest on-ramps will surely work wonders for adoption.
I'm not clear on what, exactly, Meta's AP offering might be (is it a separate user base from their other products, or an integration into them?) or how it will interact with other fediverse instances (FB/Insta users can follow users in the Fediverse without Meta enabling the reverse?).
If, on the other hand, there's full, two-way federation with Meta's services, that could be a huge boon to the fediverse, as it would share their "network effect" with a bunch of other players. Which, I guess, is possible.
But given Meta's track record of the lengths that they'll go to in pursuit of growth and profit, I'd be shocked if they actually did so.
As such, it doesn't surprise me that the fediverse is suspicious and skeptical of Meta's entrance.
I don't really see what good can come from an entrenched social media company responsible for walled garden communities trying to enter the fediverse. The whole point of federation is to _avoid_ those single points of failure.
Besides, if I wanted to see posts from Facebook or Instagram users, I know where to find them.
Exactly my thinking too. They could have their API like it was in the beginning where you could post things and read things and we could then create some translation layer for those people who really want to read their grandmas posts in their Mastodon app.
When admins decide to outright block entire domains based on some contrived bias with no input from users (ie user setting to block meta or whatever fediblock says) that pretty much kills the utility and purpose for having a federated network.
This is like if some mail host decided to block all mail from gmail domains.
Excellent. There may be other solutions too, but I haven't heard or thought of any. There are two reasons why this is a good thing, I think:
The fediverse is about creating a more decentralized internet. Facebook is about centralizing as much of the internet on its servers and sucking up as much data as possible. These things simply aren't compatible. We've seen over, and over again what happens when you allow big tech companies into your open standards. Whether it was Google destroying the XMPP network, or Microsoft deliberately trying to cripple Open Office, we know how this will end. Facebook may play nice for a day or two, but one day some product manager will decide they have most of the users, so why play nice? They'll introduce a new (proprietary) feature to try and get their users to complain to their friends that messages aren't as cool when they're not on Facebook, suck up most of the users, then defederate. Or they'll just refuse to follow the standard properly because they know best (ala Google refusing to implement TLS for server to server connections with XMPP, making many smaller servers choose to defederate for their users safety).
Also, we've seen how bad their behavior can be in terms of moderation, being party to genocide, allowing nazis, etc. so why would we allow them to bring all that too our users? Blocking entire servers until they change their behavior, or permanently if they refuse to, has been an extremely effective moderation solution that has kept the fediverse safe. This only works if server sizes stay relatively small (where the crossover point is, I don't know, but I know facebook is way beyond it).
Meta: Sure. Let's get 2B into the Fediverse with Instagram Threads.
Fediverse: No! Not that sort of adoption! Block Meta from the Fediverse now!
As expected and predicted in [0]: 'Instagram's success on ActivityPub is also Mastodon's nightmare and it tends to more centralization.'
Looks like Threads is going to be the biggest Mastodon-compatible network on the Fediverse and the other admins of larger instances who signed those NDAs won't block them anyway, with the smaller ones making themselves irrelevant if they do.
You're right, we don't want that sort of adoption! We want slow, paced, organic growth. Users should join the fediverse because they want to be there, not because a giant corporation cut their accounts over to a new service that supports some random thing they've never heard of and don't understand. The culture clash that will result from Facebooks decision could be devastating, so naturally people are pushing back against that kind of adoption.
> with the smaller ones making themselves irrelevant if they do
I don't think this is true. The fediverse started out as a way to specifically have small services where users (mostly trans and queer users early on) wouldn't be harassed all day. "Irrelevant" only makes sense if you're thinking from the perspective of "get as many users as possible", but the fediverse isn't really about that. Small servers of marginalized people talking in private spaces where no one is harassing them is still extremely relevant.
>...with the smaller ones making themselves irrelevant if they do.
Irrelevant to who and/or what?
I'd expect that most instances aren't interested in the stuff going on over on Meta's services, most likely because they're on the fediverse to get away from them.
What's more, not every site wants to monetize their users or maximize engagement. Rather, they aim to be a community.
If your[0] goal is to "increase your reach" to improve your economic prospects, then small instances will likely be irrelevant -- to you.
If that's your goal, I don't want you on my AP instance anyway. There's way too much of that elsewhere.
>This 'ActivityPub' interoperability also happened with Gab, which became the largest Mastodon instance at one point and then almost all instances de-federated with it.
wasn't this Pawoo.net? I remember Gab switching to mastodon but they weren't really big, unlike Pawoo which was by far the biggest instance at one time.
[+] [-] MBCook|2 years ago|reply
No not like that!
A person going by Bloonface (https://mastodon.social/@Bloonface/110605013435138542#.) put it perfectly. People complain more people should dump centralization and move to Mastodon, but every time they try they get shouted at for doing it wrong.
Posting too much. Using hashtags. Not using hashtags. Not adding alt descriptions. Not using content warnings. Using content warnings. Using them, but for the wrong thing. Joining the big servers. Joining the bad servers. Talking about Twitter. Not calling it ‘the bird site’. Not being pro-(whatever) enough. Demanding people do any of the above.
A number of people I like went to Mastodon, I enjoy I can keep reading their stuff. And I get the problems with Bluesky. But boy do I wish I had an invite, it sounds so much less contentious and more fun.
[+] [-] LexiMax|2 years ago|reply
It seems 100% reasonable to suspect the motives of a company with two massive walled-garden social networks under their belt. The fediverse doesn't need them, and there's no obvious upside of federation for them.
Besides, on my list of issues with Facebook and Instagram, "not being accessible from the wider internet" isn't even on my top 10. If I wanted to read posts from those networks, I know where to find them.
[+] [-] praisewhitey|2 years ago|reply
The Fediverse has been successful at attracting techies with time and money, but instead of them using it to help a mid size general public instance they use it to make their own server where they can be the ones imposing the bullshit bans.
[+] [-] lapcat|2 years ago|reply
I've found Bluesky to be uninteresting, and my feed is also pretty dead now. People sign up and then abandon it. I don't bother checking much anymore or handing out the invite codes that I'm accumulating.
Ironically, even the people who say that Mastodon is a dead end and Bluesky is more promising are posting more on Mastodon than on Blueksy. ;-)
[+] [-] jacooper|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dleslie|2 years ago|reply
Why, exactly?
[+] [-] treyd|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] egypturnash|2 years ago|reply
They are also well-known for tracking users across the entire internet and maintaining "shadow profiles" of people who don't even use their services. Anyone with privacy concerns[1] would not want them on the same network as themselves.
Their moderation is shit, they are happy to encourage arguments as long as they get ad views out of it. The Fediverse is generally supported by funds donated by site admins and users, who often would rather not have a place full of arguments. [2]
1: arguably anyone with privacy concerns might do well to avoid ActivityPub anyway but... 2: call it a "filter bubble" if you like, I'd rather be in one curated by myself and/or a friend than one curated by an amoral corporation
[+] [-] ceejayoz|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] syntheweave|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cyanydeez|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LexiMax|2 years ago|reply
Meta already has their social networks. The fediverse doesn't need them, and I don't see why they "need" the fediverse either - unless their plan is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
[+] [-] web3-is-a-scam|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nobody9999|2 years ago|reply
I'm not clear on what, exactly, Meta's AP offering might be (is it a separate user base from their other products, or an integration into them?) or how it will interact with other fediverse instances (FB/Insta users can follow users in the Fediverse without Meta enabling the reverse?).
If, on the other hand, there's full, two-way federation with Meta's services, that could be a huge boon to the fediverse, as it would share their "network effect" with a bunch of other players. Which, I guess, is possible.
But given Meta's track record of the lengths that they'll go to in pursuit of growth and profit, I'd be shocked if they actually did so.
As such, it doesn't surprise me that the fediverse is suspicious and skeptical of Meta's entrance.
[+] [-] rcme|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LexiMax|2 years ago|reply
Besides, if I wanted to see posts from Facebook or Instagram users, I know where to find them.
[+] [-] jeena|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zer0zzz|2 years ago|reply
This is like if some mail host decided to block all mail from gmail domains.
[+] [-] tourmalinetaco|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SamWhited|2 years ago|reply
The fediverse is about creating a more decentralized internet. Facebook is about centralizing as much of the internet on its servers and sucking up as much data as possible. These things simply aren't compatible. We've seen over, and over again what happens when you allow big tech companies into your open standards. Whether it was Google destroying the XMPP network, or Microsoft deliberately trying to cripple Open Office, we know how this will end. Facebook may play nice for a day or two, but one day some product manager will decide they have most of the users, so why play nice? They'll introduce a new (proprietary) feature to try and get their users to complain to their friends that messages aren't as cool when they're not on Facebook, suck up most of the users, then defederate. Or they'll just refuse to follow the standard properly because they know best (ala Google refusing to implement TLS for server to server connections with XMPP, making many smaller servers choose to defederate for their users safety).
Also, we've seen how bad their behavior can be in terms of moderation, being party to genocide, allowing nazis, etc. so why would we allow them to bring all that too our users? Blocking entire servers until they change their behavior, or permanently if they refuse to, has been an extremely effective moderation solution that has kept the fediverse safe. This only works if server sizes stay relatively small (where the crossover point is, I don't know, but I know facebook is way beyond it).
[+] [-] jacooper|2 years ago|reply
Literally almost all of their internal domains are still Facebook, and now they dumped the mertaverse and switched to AI, just call it Facebook!
[+] [-] danradunchev|2 years ago|reply
Using Nginx to block Meta, Twitter and ChatGPT access to your sites - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36476243
[+] [-] COGlory|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tyrust|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tourmalinetaco|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rvz|2 years ago|reply
Meta: Sure. Let's get 2B into the Fediverse with Instagram Threads.
Fediverse: No! Not that sort of adoption! Block Meta from the Fediverse now!
As expected and predicted in [0]: 'Instagram's success on ActivityPub is also Mastodon's nightmare and it tends to more centralization.'
Looks like Threads is going to be the biggest Mastodon-compatible network on the Fediverse and the other admins of larger instances who signed those NDAs won't block them anyway, with the smaller ones making themselves irrelevant if they do.
Meta once again is winning.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36012434
[+] [-] SamWhited|2 years ago|reply
> with the smaller ones making themselves irrelevant if they do
I don't think this is true. The fediverse started out as a way to specifically have small services where users (mostly trans and queer users early on) wouldn't be harassed all day. "Irrelevant" only makes sense if you're thinking from the perspective of "get as many users as possible", but the fediverse isn't really about that. Small servers of marginalized people talking in private spaces where no one is harassing them is still extremely relevant.
[+] [-] nobody9999|2 years ago|reply
Irrelevant to who and/or what?
I'd expect that most instances aren't interested in the stuff going on over on Meta's services, most likely because they're on the fediverse to get away from them.
What's more, not every site wants to monetize their users or maximize engagement. Rather, they aim to be a community.
If your[0] goal is to "increase your reach" to improve your economic prospects, then small instances will likely be irrelevant -- to you.
If that's your goal, I don't want you on my AP instance anyway. There's way too much of that elsewhere.
[0] That's a general "you," not rvz specifically.
[+] [-] praisewhitey|2 years ago|reply
wasn't this Pawoo.net? I remember Gab switching to mastodon but they weren't really big, unlike Pawoo which was by far the biggest instance at one time.