• MashingBundle@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Can someone explain to me why people are so violently opposed to this?

    If Threads blows up, and ActivityPub is integrated, you’ll have access to all of it through any federated instance. No need to let Meta sap all your data to view it or communicate with it’s users. Meta can’t kill ActivityPub or force us onto Threads, just abandon it and leave us back where we are today. If you don’t like the Meta users, just make or join an instance that isn’t federated.

    Anyone can scrape the metaverse data and use it for whatever, Meta included. Them implementing ActivityPub doesn’t change anything about that.

    Look I don’t like Meta as much as the next guy, but this all just seems like illogical gatekeeping

    Edit: I understand now, see: XMPP and Google. Good article someone replied to me with, down below.

    • CALIGVLA@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      I think what people don’t want is the audience and culture that Threads is likely to bring to the fediverse, not so much Meta itself.

      • luckystarr@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        The audience is not the problem. Meta’s mere presence on the network will be. We are now at a critical point in the struggle to survive as a network, and it’s not looking good.

        If we continue like today, the network effect (Google it) would eventually lead to ActivityPub being the de facto too-big-to-fail standard in all of the web. We aren’t there yet, though. Meta knows this too and doesn’t want it to happen, because extracting value from a diverse network is way harder than from a centralized user base. The fact that they even want to federate in the first place (shouldn’t be in their interest!) rings alarm bells.

          • luckystarr@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            Honestly, there isn’t much else we can do. Spread the word that there are better alternatives to Threads and don’t let them join us. If you prevent “If you can’t beat them, join them.” then that’s a step in the right direction (survival of the network).

            • Random Dent@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 years ago

              I agree. There’s absolutely no way Meta is a good faith actor in this situation (based on, well, everything they’ve ever done up to this point) and if we give them an inch they’ll take the whole thing.

              The only thing to be done is an immediate, full−scale shunning by as many communities as possible. Make it abundantly clear that they’re not welcome here, and they can go lie in the cesspool they already made of traditional social media.

    • luckystarr@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Burn me once, shame on you. Burn me twice, shame on me. Big corporations want mainly one thing: gobble up as much value exclusively to themselves. They will take whatever means necessary to get there. The strategies to privatize public resources (XMPP, ActivityPub, etc.) are known. They look great for the public on the outside, but over the years will erode the value for everybody BUT them. In order to not let it get as far, many (including me) are of the conviction to not even give them a finger, let alone the whole hand.

    • Deceptichum@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Because history shows big tech companies fuck over competition and that competition is us, regular people.

      We’ve gone from not interacting with them to now being their rival and a direct threat to their profits.

    • Lemmypy@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Step 1: Threads starts federating with mastodon

      Step 2: mastodon users happily engage with threads, letting it become the biggest fediverse instance

      Step 3: threads stops federating with mastodon

      Step 4: mastodon users switch over to threads where all conversation is happening, leaving the fediverse deserted

      • Lee Duna@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        More than 5 million people signed up within hours, let’s assume they will have 30 million users by the end of the month. I’m sure there are Mastodon users will consider switching to Threads.

        https://www.marketing-interactive.com/meta-threads-garners-5-million-signups-in-first-few-hours

        And not to mention the Threads app is a privacy nightmare. I’m sure they can figure out any fediverse user, If fediverse server remains federated with meta server.

        One more thing, this mastodon server admin declined an invitation from meta

      • fbievan@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Plus knowing meta, they’ll problary select a handful of instances to federate with. Meaning this plan is stupid.

      • fbievan@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Mastodon.social is the biggest instance

        There’s plenty of conversation already existing. Even my single user instance is barely keeping up.

        Its not like this is how federation works, federation happens in 3 ways: a person follows a user, thus getting their posts, an instance follows a relay, which gets sent posts and spreads them back out like a vaccum, and 3rd boosting posts.

        I don’t see threads changing all that much if people don’t follow those accounts, and or meta doesn’t follow relays and send their posts out through relays.

        • fbievan@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          I can’t figure out what meta wants to actaully do.

          I can’t decipher fully.

          If your a big instance and don’t want to waste bandwidth, just block them.

          If you want meta, block them from the federated timeline if you desire.

          No one will guide you in what to do with your fedi instance.

      • SpicyTofuSoup@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Plus if all a lot of people who you follow are on threads then it might be a more attractive option to just switch platforms so you can see their content again after meta defederates

      • nave@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        But Mastodon has less users than Threads already, if someone wanted to jump ship for more conversation wouldn’t they do it already? Heck, wouldn’t they have stayed on twitter?

      • fbievan@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Plus this isn’t like its XMPP or something where people actaully care who they’re talking to. I really don’t.

    • GunnarRunnar@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      I guess the fear (and probable strategy for Meta) is to first establish themselves as just a reliable instance with a closed app (Threads). From there, it’s a slow crawl to bring in the users, from outside but also from other instances. They have multiple tools for this: the infinite budget to develop Threads with exclusive features, just a better app, maybe influencer friendly ad models. The list is infinite.

      So where’s the rub? Meta is just introducing activity pub to more users.

      The problem is two step: They’ll eventually will lock in the platform from rest of the fediverse. It’ll might be years from now but it’ll happen (unless it’s killed first if course). This hurts rest of the fediverse by making it smaller: They will hook in users that would’ve otherwise chosen another instance and now are in Meta’s side fence which has turned into a wall.

      Note: Not an expert, I just like to speculate.

    • picnic@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Do you remember what happened with gtalk and facebook messenger? They both were based on xmpp. After moving away from xmpp (what both did), I didnt have use for xmpp anymore. Honestly, Meta has given me no reason whatsoever in their whole record of existence to earn my trust.

    • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      The problem with trying to break it up is that the FTC already allowed the mergers that let them get so big. They approved the purchases of Whatsapp and Instagram. Thankfully the new chair of the FTC seems to understand letting companies get this big is not good and is trying to block these things from happening in the future.

    • dan1101@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yes, once a company is a certain size it has too much power to exploit and do a crappy job of customer service while they do it.

  • mainaccount@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Yeah, right.

    tHeRe’s No fUCkInG waY FaCEBooK wOULd EVER SUcKed Up aLL liFE FRom soMETHinG GOoD aNd tHEN LefT iT tO DiE WheN it’S nO LONgeR uSEfuL U guiZ!

  • Prior_Industry@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I can see the argument that Meta wants to kill the fediverse but I am kinda excited that we could possibly still get content from feeds that would not consider a mastodon account, even if that is a disagreeable attitude. Looking at Threads it already looks like brands “autosport, financial times” etc have setup regular posting schedules on threads so it really could be the Twitter killer.

  • Eggyhead@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    What we know

    Threads is a separate app from Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram. This means Threads’ user base will be separate from their existing platforms.

    Well that aged like milk…

  • jtb@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Remember what Google Groups did to Usenet? We should be wary.

    • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Breathe life into an almost-dead format and worked hard to retrieve as much post history as possible? Yeah, I remember what Google did to Usenet. Do you?

    • howlongisleft@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      It didn’t do anything. Usenet still exists and is active in some circles. It’s not very popular, but it’s as alive and well as it always was.

      • jtb@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        I should think there are many people who think Google Groups is Usenet, and they have to register with google to post on there. Recently I think they have removed the option to view the source of an article.

      • FightMilk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Usenet is still my primary source for uh…discounted media. I’ve had it for so long now I couldn’t even imagine not using it

        • JoelJ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          I’ve looked into doing that myself before, but it seemed like a lot of work and research to get it set up

          • _cerpin_taxt_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            It’s pretty easy, especially if you have someone (me) that will let you see their setup or help out with any questions. Highly, highly recommend running your server on unRAID.

            • JoelJ@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 years ago

              Can you recommend any good walk-throughs for noobs? I didn’t even know you needed a server lol

              • FightMilk@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 years ago

                You only need a server if you plan to serve the content in a sophisticated way (like Plex). If you just watch movies on your laptop then it’s as simple as downloading the files and opening them.

                Unfortunately, getting into usenet is actually not as technically hard as it is practically hard. First, some things to know about usenet:

                • You pay for access to a usenet server, which has incredible speeds and doesn’t rely on uploaders. There are many out there, and good ones are easy to find.
                • Because it isn’t P2P like torrents, there’s no way for the studios to know who’s been downloading anything. Typically the most they can do is send a DMCA to the servers, who auto-comply. Because of this near-anonymity, a VPN usually isn’t used. The corporations would need to subpoena the server to get any of your info, and they’re usually deliberately hosted in privacy-friendly countries.
                • Now the hard part: knowing where the files you want to download exist on that usenet server, because even a small TV episode is often divided into 50+ smaller files. This is where NZBs come in. NZBs are small files that tell your usenet downloader where to find all the parts that create the bigger file. The usenet server you pay for doesn’t provide this service for legal reasons.
                • Therefore, you need to also subscribe to an NZB indexer, which is where you search for NZBs for shows, movies, games, etc. Some are one lifetime payment, some are recurring. Good ones usually only open their enrollment during very small windows, so it can be really tough to get into one. This is the biggest hurdle for most people. Even finding out which indexers are out there can be tough, as people generally don’t blab about them in open forums, because they’re the most piracy-adjacent and vulnerable to being shut down.

                That said, once you have a usenet server to connect to, and an indexer to find what you want, then it’s as simple as downloading the NZB file with a program like Sabnzbd, which will feel very similar to a torrent client. It downloads the various parts and combines them, so what you end up with is openable by windows (either media or exe). Everyone starts this way, and most users are probably content stopping at this stage too.

                From there, however, some people get really advanced with it, like the person above running it on a separate server. There’s software out there that automates TV and Movies downloads based on your preferences and which shows you subscribe to, same with music and even ebooks. Then there’s Plex, which you may already be familiar with and which allows you to use your laptop or whatever to stream your content to phones, chromecast, etc., as well as share your content with friends to stream (requires paid sub I believe). It can be a little daunting to set everything up, but you’re mostly just following guides because it’s the same setup for everyone, minus changes in server URLs, username/password, etc. And once it’s running, it really is beautiful. A show that I subscribe to that airs on say, Wednesdays 8-9pm, is available on my Plex by like 9:30 typically, without me having to lift a finger. I even get a notification on my phone that a new episode is available.

                But to be able to transcode streams to multiple people in the house? Requires a somewhat beefy processor. And to keep your huge library of shows for years and year? Requires a lot of storage. Even more so on both counts if you want everything in 4K bluray quality. And it probably needs to be a dedicated machine–can’t be gaming and transcoding from the same rig. But boy is it addicting building up your own enormous streaming service for friends and families haha. I hope you can see now why some people would get carried away with it.

                • JoelJ@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  Wow thanks that’s the best breakdown I’ve read! I’ve been torrenting for maybe 15 years and used to collect all the shows I watched until one day my external hard drive died and I lost everything :(

                  Nowadays I just delete a show after I’ve watched it, so Idon’t think I’ll worry about making my own server yet. I’ve had a look into it and think I’ll start off with NZB Geek as indexer and Frugal Usenet as a server. Drunken Slug seems pretty popular too but they don’t seem to be open for registrations atm

          • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            Not much different than torrents. With torrents you’ll need a VPN to connect through, with usenet you need a news server to connect to. Torrents need a client, so do nzbs. You have to go to an indexer to search for torrents, same thing with nzbs. Really the biggest difference is you connect to a dedicated, paid for server instead of a connection of peers.

  • demonsword@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    don’t know about you folks but this sounded so arrogant to me:

    There was a time when users of Facebook and users of Google Talk were able to chat with each other and with people from self-hosted XMPP servers, before each platform was locked down into the silos we know today. What would stop that from repeating? Well, even if Threads abandoned ActivityPub down the line, where we would end up is exactly where we are now. XMPP did not exist on its own outside of nerd circles, while ActivityPub enjoys the support and brand recognition of Mastodon.

    • Im14abeer
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Totally sniffing their own farts. The “brand recognition of Mastodon”, someone might want to look at the scoreboard before saying they’re going to win the game.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        It’s weird to hear someone say “Google Chat killed Messenger apps” when it is so very clear that cell phones did that all on their own.

        I respect this person’s passion, but his history is slanted, to say the very least.

        • eon@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          That era was still too early for widespread self-hosting and people were barely discovering all that internet tech. So what Jabber/XMPP offered was still neither appealing nor user-friendly enough.

          Moreover, it was Whatsapp that fixed your mobile number as your username that ruined Jabber’s momentum, not Google. Google Talk or Chat had never reached a notable market share.

    • Fangslash@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Yea, I don’t think the original poster understands why google hurts XMMP, because by that logic once google left XMMP is also let at where it is at before google joined.

      The issue with cooperations joining federation is they almost always have better infrastructure, they will siphon users out of the wider network with convenience. Then eventually they will forcibly leave the network with its users, because that makes them more money, at the cost of their user and everyone else on the network as we get less connectivity.

      • jcg@halubilo.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Right, the problem is more the new users - who might even have been on Mastodon/Pleroma/etc. if they didn’t hear about threads - will just go to threads. The EEE stuff comes later, and the article kind of realizes this without realising it - the EEE stuff will come maybe even years later and yet Mastodon will be where it is now. Their growth will be stunted.

  • legion@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Why are people mad at this? Being able to communicate with Threads users from mastodon servers, is good? Right?

    • jtb@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      I think there is a risk that Threads will be massive, and so people will think that the way to get on Mastodon is Threads, and eventually that Threads is Mastodon. C/f Google Groups and Usenet.

      • legion@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Still not convinced. If Mastodon or ActivityPub dies we’ll have Bluesky and AT. Not worried. Good to have options.

      • legion@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I know we all dream of having all our friends and family on the Fediverse so we can avoid proprietary networks completely. But the Fediverse is not looking for market dominance or profit. The Fediverse is not looking for growth. It is offering a place for freedom. People joining the Fediverse are those looking for freedom. If people are not ready or are not looking for freedom, that’s fine. They have the right to stay on proprietary platforms. We should not force them into the Fediverse. We should not try to include as many people as we can at all cost. We should be honest and ensure people join the Fediverse because they share some of the values behind it.

        This is incredibly naive. Mastodon/ActivityPub is much more popular than XMPP was lol

  • Dark_Blade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    We kept losing, and will keep losing, because billionaire megacorps simply have the money to move worlds if doing so aligns with their ‘interests’ (ie money). This hasn’t changed, and won’t change now either; the Fediverse is done for.

    Fuck Facebook for ruining another good thing.

    • Marxine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      ActivityPub won’t ever “truly” die, it might lose the chance of becoming “the salvation from mega corporations running the internet” though. We’ll always have the possibility of running small-ish, tight-knit instances.

      But agreed, fuck Zuckerberg and his cronies.

      • GreyBeard@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        I don’t think it was ever going to be the salvation from mega corporations. The internet itself was touted as that, but corporations figured out how to capture and own most of it. No reason they wouldn’t do the same thing for ActivityPub if it became as common place as the Internet itself.

        • Marxine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          Yup, capitalism pushes them to try to own/incorporate everything that can either be a threat or a resource for the business.

      • Dark_Blade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        When people like Zucc get involved in anything and the appropriate amount of skepticism isn’t shown, you’re left with little reason to be optimistic.

      • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        There’s a long term silver lining though. People keep learning. Constant exposure to manipulation makes us more resistent to it. Consider how much the Internet has trained you to recognize scammers, salesmen, trolls, instigators, demagogues and so on.

    • graphite@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Enjoy it while it lasts, and don’t get too attached.

      It’s an inevitable aspect of what happens when the Internet is commercialized.

    • graphite@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Enjoy it while it lasts, and don’t get too attached.

      It’s an inevitable aspect of what happens when the Internet is commercialized.

  • JigglySackles@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    This is why we can’t have nice things. It was nice to be on platforms with no corporate stink for a brief moment.

  • AbsolutePain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    FOSS is the ultimate form of software. It’s like life, it will just get copied and forked and modified, and it will continue to evolve because it’s been set free in the world.

    Yeah, Facebook might embrace-extend-extinguish the Fediverse. But on the other hand, it’s not the end of the world if they do. Right now, we have a decentralized platform to post, talk and interact on. If that changes, we will create another one

    To me, the most interesting part about this is that the Fediverse is even on Facebook’s Meta’s radar. It’s tiny. Do they see it as a possible competitor?

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      They see it as free data. Meta will always suck data wherever they can. Remember they have a LLM engine too and lots of money and lots of data to train it on – but more’s even better. They can have swarms of bots trained to spread whatever the highest bidder wants them to spread. They can PR whitewash a brand or a celebrity, they can twist events, they can influence elections.

      • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        It was free data to begin with. It’s always been free data. All those internet posts you posted from some lame message board 25 years ago are still there. It’s probably still on Archive.org.

        If you’re concerned about your privacy, don’t post shit you don’t want out there on a public forum.

      • two_wheel2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        They probably don’t need to make a whole platform to do this, though. Couldn’t they just slurp the data right out of ActivityPub without making Threads? Either way, I’m dismayed that meta is managing to YET AGAIN convince people that this time they’ll be good

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Facebook never operated misleading bots. Companies that ran those bots utilized Facebook as their delivery method.

    • mrmanager@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I think it could be a way to get around privacy laws.

      Those laws quickly becomes difficult to apply when everyones posts are no longer on central servers owned by meta and instead is copied across thousands of instance owners.

      But I think their primary objective is to take on Twitter and get people to use Meta instead. It doesn’t cost them much to start experimenting with the tech, and being first somewhere is always an advantage.