816
Mastodon's official stance on Threads
(blog.joinmastodon.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
816 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
60016 readers
2793 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I read your comment before I read the blog post and I have to say, I am finding it hard to align it with what's in the blog.
Aside from the hand-waving comment about XMPP, he does a great job of explaining how everything works, and based on my understanding of the fediverse and its architecture, its all true.
I dont understand what people think should happen here. If a large corporation wants to join, then there is nothing anyone can do to stop them. Its an open protocol. If you want to use Threads, join. If you dont, don't. If you want your server to defederate, tell your admin or join a defederated instance. If you want to federate, tell your admin or join an instance that's federated. If you want to control your own destiny completely, self-host.
There is tons of choice here and the way it's architected, several layers of protection. I dont get this moral panic everyone has. This is quite literally the point of a decentralized social network.
At the end of the day, if a large corporation joining the network, kills it, then it was destined to be destroyed from the beginning.
The problems I personally have with Meta are:
That and basically all the shit big corps do like make people angry and hacking people's brains to stay on the site for as long as fucking possible. Which they are 100% going to try to do here regardless of our intentions.
They can, and are probably already doing, #1 right now. As are Google, Bing, Yandex, Baidu, Apple, DuckDuck, OpenAi, etc. All of the comments and profiles are public information which means literally anyone on the web can see it and do with it. As the blog post says, they don't get anything else though like IP or email--only your home instance gets that. Everything else they can already get with their webcrawlers.
#2. There is no evidence that they plan on doing that. This is a slippery slope argument (which is a logical fallacy). And so what if they do that? Don't join that instance. Migrate to a different instance. Ruud could add ads to lemmy.world today.
#3. Then let those users go. How does that impact you or the fediverse? Are all of your friends on Mastodon or Lemmy now? I seriously doubt it. Do they all need to be? If people leave to go to Threads...then what? They could go to Tildes, Bluesky, or any other service right now. If the service is more appealing and aligns with their values then they'll leave for it (or join it as well). Who cares? The value proposition of the fediverse is that no one entity controls it and you have nearly infinite choice to do whatever the hell you want. Threads may never federate at all. Part of me wonders why they would. Why would they care about the 12M people on mastodon right now vs the 2.3 BILLION instagram users? If they convert 10% of those into Threads users, they'll dwarf Mastodon, so what incentive would they have to federate? It seems like it would be more of a headache for them than a benefit.
You can tilt at every windmill you see or you can enjoy the fediverse and make it a place you and your friends want to spend time.
Ultimately the fediverse is still an experiment. It clearly works, and in isolation many of the services (Lemmy, Matrix, etc.) work well enough on their own.
I'm not optimistic about anything at this point. The fediverse might die; it might not.
There could be huge incentives for them to convert Mastodon users over to Threads, based on their internal analytics, in which case the headache would be worth it.
Meta won't be dead anytime soon, but it's clear that they've made some risky plays, which means their decisions are going to continuously be less risky.
Can’t make money with the information that is public, they need the social connections to people that will see ads. They want to know our interests, and the interests of all the people we interact with. They don’t give a duck about IPs or emails, they can’t monetize those. So they will keep databases on all users and their connections and their interests all so they can show more appropriate ads. If they’re on the connected fediverse they’ll keep all that too, just in case. And any government can get this info if they ask for it.
#2 there is evidence of them wanting to do that. I’ll look up the thread on mastodon later (I’m on mobile rn).
#3 is a difficult one. I really don’t know why they even want this. I suspected it was to get active users on their initial timeline, but I guess that wasn’t that important to them after all. But there is a real chance of them stopping the growth of the fediverse or even minimizing the size and influence, simply to remove a competitor. Everything is better to them than having users calm down in a relaxing social media environment that is non toxic and could make them all obsolete and kill the whole social media industry’s MO
couldn't they data scrape without creating a new social network platform
Far too many people in this thread seem to not understand that everything they post here is on the open, public internet, and it's infuriating.
The data is already public. The cat pictures are already public. Those pictures of food you posted on Instagram are public. All of those posts you put on Facebook with your real name and political beliefs and pictures of your family and social security number are public.
It's only not public if you choose to lock it down with permissions, but all that does is make it public to the corporation you don't trust. The Fediverse doesn't have that feature because they already know it's fucking pointless. Everything is a third-party server and nobody should trust any of the servers they post on.
If you don't want it to be public, don't post the message!
“Aside” is doing a lot of the heavy lifting here, it reeks of a nauseating amount of hubris and makes one wonder if they’re suitable to maintain the project at all if they’re so oblivious to potential threats to the project.
Not roll out the red carpet for starters, and not engage with the company under NDA would be a good second.
Especially for a FOSS project that receives a healthy amount of contributions from others and likes to tout that it's co-owned by all contributors, it could be argued that it's highly objectionable for one person to engage, essentially as a representative, in non-transparent dealings that are sealed under NDA.
It really isn't rocket science, here's how the admin of the Fosstodon instance handled it.
Notice the lack of red carpet, the unwillingness to participate in an "off the record" event and the abundance of transparency towards the people he's responsible for.
I'm not saying that Rochko should've adopted the same abrasive "lol, get rekt" tone, its up to him if he's comfortable with that, but the points I'm hammering on about above can be achieved in respectful manner as well.
There is no protection. As I've stated in a different comment, t doesn’t take more than 2 seconds of thinking to see how empty the words are that Mastodon is not at risk.
3 and 5 will happen in a cascading manner, the more people switch to Threads, the more others will also want to switch.
Perhaps it is destined to be destroyed.
The concerns and ramifications of a large corporation, or any entity that vastly overshadows the "organic" Mastodon user base in orders of magnitude for that matter, federating with Mastodon have been brought up numerous times by many parties, with the goal of looking for a solutions.
These concerns weren't only brought up in light of a possible EEE strategy that lead to the death of Mastodon, but also in light of a more Google-esque play where the market share isn't necessarily used to outright kill, but instead to exert control^1^.
Every single time it fell on deaf ears (i.e. Rochko ignored it, if not outright killing the discussion), often shrugged off matter of factly that it isn't a risk.
Also make no mistake, we're talking about a layered issue here.
A network that can destroy Mastodon against its will due to its sheer size is bad enough.
Mastodon, by virtue of Rochko, facilitating this from within, adds an entirely new dimension to this.
^1^ Google famously bypasses standardization bodies and simply implements their in-house developed standards, leaving other browser engines to get with the program and implement what Google wants, or become irrelevant
Its obvious you have some strong feelings about this and it sounds like they come from you wanting Mastodon and the fedivserse to thrive. I respect that. I've enjoyed my time here so far. It would be a shame if it got torpedo'd by a big corp (especially a shitty one like Facebook).
That said, I don't think anyone has rolled out the red carpet. The FOSS guy's response is great, but meeting with them cost Eugen nothing(except maybe your goodwill). The fact that there was an NDA is a nothingburger. People sign those ALL-THE-TIME. It doesn't mean anything nefarious is happening and it doesn't mean Eugen has "gone to the dark side". It's definitely not "rolling out the red carpet".
I've also seen a lot of jumping to conclusions and fantastical strawmen at the bottom of everyone's slippery slope arguments. A few of your numbered points would fall into that conclusion jumping bucket, and some of your other points are based on an, imo, misunderstanding of the users of the fediverse.
For instance, #3 and #5 don't give this community enough credit. The bulk of the people on the fediverse are big proponents of free and open internet, privacy, foss, etc. Most are refugees of Twitter, Reddit, or Facebook to begin with--they aren't just hopping back in bed with Facebook.
And to that point, why would they all of the sudden care about the social media all of their friends are on? I can almost guarantee that their "normie" friends aren't on the fediverse. The core crowd on Mastodon aren't going anywhere. The crowd that Threads will attract were never coming to Mastodon to begin with.
Like I said, I just dont get the outrage. Keep on trucking in the fediverse with the community thats here and stop spending so much time Chicken Little-ing.
edit: Oh for what its worth: https://jogblog.substack.com/p/facebooks-threads-is-so-depressing Thats a hilarious read about Threads and why its already pretty lame.
Of course, I wanted Mastodon and the fediverse to thrive, if only because it was a once in a lifetime opportunity to dethrone corporations that have a complete disregard of people's wellbeing as long as it turn them a profit.
Mastodon's figurehead in particular has squandered the opportunity and if not outright self-sabotaged himself.
My main focus thus far has been Mastodon as oppose to the fediverse as a whole, because Mastodon has a unique challenge that other fediverse projects don't have, namely the social graph.
People visiting Lemmy don't care and don't know who the person above and below them is, at most they might care that they're not straight up Nazi schmucks and preferably they're someone who has an interest in the topic of the community they're posting in, but that's about it.
On a "twitterlike" the identity of the people present is of more importance. Which is why I think in particular Mastodon will suffer the most, without knowing exactly if and how the other fediverse projects will be affected by Threads.
I fail to see how this is the case.
Even if we ignore everything else, ignore the severe lack of transparency from the side of Rochko, his refusal to deny that he has received funds from Meta and his refusal to pledge not to accept funds in the future, ignore what could've transpired during the meeting with Meta, literally pretend like we are in a vacuum and the only thing related to Meta from his hand is the blog, then the blog alone is a perfect top of the line red carpet that has been rolled out.
I mean he hails it as a victory and ends with a tacit invitation for other corporations to do the same.
Just this quote alone is enough of a red carpet being rolled out:
How much more does someone need to be inviting to be considered to have rolled out a red carpet?
Respectfully, this is difficult to read with a straight face after having experienced first hand the effects the Threads launch have had on my Mastodon timeline.
I follow close to 2k people on Mastodon and it used to be that at any given time I could open my timeline and 400+ posts were waiting on me to peruse.
It's completely dead now, no more than 20 or so posts showed up in total for the entire day, this after a day where there was a sea of people posting a link to their Threads profile.
Safe for a few holdouts I can count on one hand, nearly everyone created a Threads account and they're more active there than I've ever seen them on Mastodon.
If anything, it seems like I gave the people on Mastodon too much credit and I've underestimated how strong the network effect is, since I thought it would at least take until the actual "embrace" phase of it all i.e. until Meta would be ActivityPub compatible.
And it's not like the vast majority of people I follow are normies or anything.
About 90% of them are software engineers like myself not afraid to tinker with things and deal with the "difficulty" of making a Mastodon account.
Hell, about a 100 of them run their own instance, one of which is the one I'm on and a good chunk of them are very active in the FOSS community themselves.
Sure, some of it might be because of the hype and novelty, so some might come back, but if anything that proves my point that they'll happily jump ship if Meta does decide to nix the compatibility in the future.
And this is me being generous, like I said activity by people that moved to Threads has skyrocketed, not only did entire social graphs migrate to Threads, they were made whole again.
People that weren't seen for ages since leaving Twitter popped up there much to many people's delight.
Most people that migrated to Mastodon wanted a 1:1 Twitter replacement first and foremost and took the ideology as a nice bonus.
These are people that built a support network on Twitter, people that built a professional network on Twitter, people that built a network of peers, in short, a network that was important if not essential to them.
If I take myself as an example, an indie iOS dev, before I left Twitter I used it to stay in touch with friends I had in my industry, other indie devs, engineers at Apple, journalists covering and reviewing apps, local organizations and affiliated people working towards social justice, national organizations and affiliated people working towards social justice and then the rest was purely to ingest information and news.
The purpose of being in touch with these people varied, from comparing notes on how to best do my work, socializing with friends, arranging collaborations on projects, keeping track of what others were working on, promoting my own work, getting help from Apple engineers when I hit a snag, helping people get a job at places that were looking for someone, staying in the loop in case I wanted/needed a job, staying in the loop about local organizing and coordinating with organizers, etc. etc.
I was lucky that I happened to work in a field that is tech savvy and so most of my social graph, but not all, transitioned to Mastodon.
Many people weren't this lucky and even the people in my social graph that transitioned had a considerable chunk of people that wasn't entirely enamored by Mastodon.
Personally I welcomed the change of pace, but I couldn't deny that their gripes were valid.
So to circle back to your comments about the core crowd and the crowd that Threads attracts:
Unless you by "core crowd" you refer to what Rochko called "nerd circles", then I'm afraid you're wrong on this.
Just as you're wrong on the crowd that Threads attracts, because not only "were" they coming on Mastodon, they literally were on Mastodon until recently.
Somehow this statement by Rochko is now even more laughable in hindsight:
Not only was Mastodon already heavily slanted towards "nerd circles" at the time these words were published, but it will only become more of a "nerd circle" from here on out.
ActivityPub hasn't even been enabled on Threads and Mastodon isn't "where we are now".
While a funny writing style, it comes across as uninformed.
As much as I wish it was the shitshow as depicted in that blog post, I'm sad to say that those were for all intents and purposes just placeholder posts, as soon as you start following people you won't really see those anymore.
Call it Chicken Little-ing, call it FUD, call it whatever you want.
My timeline is dead and pretty much my social graph is happy they've found their precious Twitter replacement, so other than a very niche group, I'd say Mastodon is dead.
I might not like it, but I'm not gonna pretend like the blog you linked is based in reality while I stare out the window at the cool kids having fun like I'm Squidward
I disagree with your threat assessment, but thanks for that link, it was indeed a good read.
The sanest comment here.