#Fedipact - The instances blocking Zuckerberg's Threads.net
fedipact.veganism.social
An interactive list to see which ActivityPub (Matodon, Lemmy, FireFish, etc) instances are federating with Threads.net
      • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
        26·
        11 months ago

        I still stand by that defederation as the only line of defense is a losing strategy. Keeping users siloed in Facebook’s garden shouldn’t be seen as a win for us.

        • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
          72·
          11 months ago

          Keeping users siloed in Facebook’s garden shouldn’t be seen as a win for us.

          Sometimes the only winning move is not to play. If people hadn’t federated with google’s XMPP back in the day, google wouldn’t have had the same level of control it had to kill XMPP as a competitor.

          We need to learn from the lessons of the past, and the past has resulted in the deaths of services when federating with corporations.

            • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
              8·
              11 months ago

              I never said defeating them or out competing them should be the goal. The goal should be the survival of services. And corporations will kill these services.

          • Flaky@iusearchlinux.fyiEnglish
            6·
            11 months ago

            Hate to burst your bubble, but no-one was actually using XMPP with Google Talk except for open-source tech nerds.

            • Alsephina@lemmy.ml
              16·
              11 months ago

              And google stopped any chances of that ever happening. The Fediverse should just let itself grow gradually and naturally, as should have XMPP

                • poVoq@slrpnk.net
                  5·
                  11 months ago

                  They piggy backed on rapidly growing XMPP and then became lazy with keeping compatible with the rest of the xmpp federation and at some point the s2s connection stopped being feasible as they never implemented TLS for it, and did’t really care as most xmpp users were on their server anyways and thus did’t use the s2s connection.

                  Its not a typical nefarious EEE story, but it did a lot of damage to the xmpp federation anyways.

            • poVoq@slrpnk.net
              5·
              11 months ago

              This predates Google Talk and is rather about the XMPP Gmail integration. Back then XMPP was the hot topic in tech circles (Twitter was even prototyped to be XMPP based) and people were switching to it and recommending it to others to replace ICQ/MSN/AIM etc. However, often they recommended others to use the Google XMPP service as back then Google was still naively seen as the “Do no evil” good guy, having just started up recently and giving away free things like previously unheared off 1GB of email storage etc.

              So the situation is not quite comparable to AP and Facebook (and XMPP is far from dead), but it is still possible to draw some lessons from it.

        • davel [he/him]@lemmy.mlEnglish
          22·
          11 months ago

          What is your definition of win? Market share? Are you thinking in capitalist terms?

          Nobody is forcing those people to use Facebook, and they are welcome to come here whenever they like.

          • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
            3·
            11 months ago

            The most free people. Best for society. Etc.

            |They’re welcome to come here whenever they like .

            Only if they know it exists and can still connect with the people and communities they care about. This is what the federated approach was supposed to fix, the silos, the community capture.

            • davel [he/him]@lemmy.mlEnglish
              7·
              11 months ago

              We know what Meta is, and we know our history, so we know Meta’s goal is to destroy the fediverse. Federating with Meta is not likely to yield your desired outcomes.

      • davel [he/him]@lemmy.mlEnglish
        3·
        11 months ago

        This conversation will be off the record.

        Ahaha, fuck no. If someone did go, please spill that tea.

    • Corgana@startrek.website
      5·
      11 months ago

      Can you explain what that means in this context? How does defederating Threads prevent Meta from extinguishing anything?

      • davel [he/him]@lemmy.mlEnglish
        33·
        11 months ago
        • Embrace: Join the fediverse with your existing user base that dwarfs the fediverse’s existing user base, and with infinitely more money.
        • Extend: Use your size, in terms of users and capital, to steer the direction of the ActivityPub fediverse standard to your advantage and your competitors’ disadvantage. You see everyone else as a competitor because you are a corporation seeking to monopolize the user base for profit.
        • Extinguish: See what Google did to XMPP for a concrete example.
          • davel [he/him]@lemmy.mlEnglish
            26·
            11 months ago

            For those unaware of Google’s latest web browser malarkey: Web Environment Integrity

            EFF/Cory Doctorow/Jacob Hoffman-Andrews: Your Computer Should Say What You Tell It To Say

            Google is adding code to Chrome that will send tamper-proof information about your operating system and other software, and share it with websites. Google says this will reduce ad fraud. In practice, it reduces your control over your own computer, and is likely to mean that some websites will block access for everyone who’s not using an “approved” operating system and browser. It also raises the barrier to entry for new browsers, something Google employees acknowledged in an unofficial explainer for the new feature, Web Environment Integrity (WEI).

            • TheFriendlyArtificer@beehaw.org
              3·
              11 months ago

              I genuinely want Gopher back.

              I want to share information and to communicate. I don’t want every bowel movement tracked and monetizes. I don’t want 30 cross site requests when going to a news site. A single story should not require 10MB of JavaScript libraries.

              I have no doubt that most of the authors of the original internet are aghast at what their high-minded creation has itself created.

            • Corgana@startrek.website
              4·
              11 months ago

              That’s a common misconception actually, any and all data available via federation is already public and easily scrapable even without running an instance of one’s own. Defederating only hides (in this case) Threads content from users on the instance doing the defederating, but the data is still public. Not to mention copies of it would still be fully available on any extant federated instances.

              • Gestrid@lemmy.caEnglish
                6·
                11 months ago

                But they would still be unable to embrace (and, by extension, extend and extinguish) because users from Threads would be unable to interact with users from other instances. Basically, they’d be unable to get rid of a potential competitor using the EEE method.

                • Corgana@startrek.website
                  2·
                  11 months ago

                  But how could interoperability lead to extinguishing? That’s the part I don’t understand. By what means could Threads “extinguish” the network of instances that stay federated?

      • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.de
        3·
        11 months ago

        It prevents that specific strategy that would culminate in extinguishing. The idea being to siphon users away from other platforms, then add features that other platforms won’t or can’t implement, and use that to create an image of their own platform being better, having more features. If they succeed at having a lot of users oblivious to what’s happening, they will use those features, and when they don’t work for people on other platforms, they will blame the other platforms instead of their own, further cultivating the image that other platforms are broken/unreliable. In the end, they leave other platforms unable to compete, forcing users to either have a “broken”/incomplete experience, or migrate to their platforms. (Or leave the fediverse entirely). Or they can simply stop federating at that point, after users have left for their platform, cutting off the rest of the fediverse from content hosted on their platform.

        The way defederating prevents a strategy like that is by cutting them off before they can get a foothold - they can’t make users feel left out if they don’t get to influence their experience in the first place.

  • MudMan@kbin.social
    46·
    11 months ago

    Huh. You’d think more instances were blocking, given the amount of buzz.

    Being generallky in favor of letting individual users make this call that’s… mildly encouraging. Of course I happen to be in an instance that is blocking, so…

    It’s worth noting that this still splits Mastodon pretty much in half. That’s arguably a bigger concern than anything else Meta may be doing. They may not even have to actually federate to break Mastodon, which is a very interesting dynamic.

      • MudMan@kbin.social
        19·
        11 months ago

        Oh, hard disagree on the last part, at least.

        As always in left-leaning spaces, the best way to disarm any threat of reform is to wait for whatever purity test over a random issue to trigger a schism, sit back and watch. It’s not even the first time it happens to Mastodon specifically.

        In this case, a potential competitor that already has a reputation for being overcomplicated and having bad UX now needs an extra FAQ item called “can I interact with Threads from Mastodon?” and the answer is “it depends”.

        It’s terrible, self-destructive and worse than either a yes or no call. Zuck boned Masto by federating a handful of employee accounts only AND he’s still going to get the plausible deniability in front of regulators from federating with whatever’s left. I’d be impressed if I thought Meta did it on purpose instead of it being entirely self-inflicted.

        • SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net
          1·
          11 months ago

          Thanks for putting this in words, I had been struggling thinking about what was bothering me about this.

          • u_u@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            1·
            11 months ago

            Hey can you help me reword the commenter above you about what they meant? I had a hard time fully understanding it, maybe I’m not updated enough about Meta to understand what exactly Zuck wants to have plausible-deniability about?

            • SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net
              1·
              11 months ago

              I can only tell you what I read it as: it’s about the current increase in regulations from the EU, this can be specifically read as a way to avoid getting regulated by DMA which aims to make any massively popular services have to have crossplay or compatibility methods that any other competitor can use.

              It’s basically asking any service to have a standard way of interoperability with everyone else, which ActivityPub can be considered for social media, and Meta is using federating with ActivityPub based services while getting blocked by them as a plausibly deniable way of interoperability without actually having to do that because they’re blocked by most of the other services and they can surely find ways to block other popular servers by claiming that those servers are not doing as good of a job at moderating, allowing Meta to have their cake and eat it too basically.

              I hope this helps, I tried to cover every possible way to explain it that I could think of. I tried to see if ChatGPT can help but I felt it was lacking.

      • moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        7·
        11 months ago

        It’s not just ideological. Many people and instances on the fediverse have minorities using them. These minorities rely on it to share and discuss in safe spaces. The federation of threads is a threat to these safe space.

  • Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works
    22·
    11 months ago

    It’s somehow fun to see instance rules adding a clause about We do not federate with organization involved in Genocides

    And a pitty that Meta is that Bad !

  • Levsgetso@lemmy.zipEnglish
    22·
    11 months ago

    There seems to a mistake saying that Threads is not blocked by lemmy.zip, when we defederated them months ago.

  • notsharp@lemmy.world
    22·
    11 months ago

    Am I the one who finds X federated in the status of this website as that instance is not federated ?

    It also confuses me that it says like that instance is federated.

      • Alsephina@lemmy.ml
        10·
        11 months ago

        I was right to avoid making my account there then lol

        though ig you can just migrate accounts now with 0.19

          • Alsephina@lemmy.ml
            8·
            11 months ago

            Much better. It’s modded directly by Lemmy devs and they don’t defederate well-modded instances.

            Btw, “tankie” isn’t much of an insult if you meant it like that, the same way “woke” isn’t much of one to the people conservatives use it against. Fighting against economic inequality and discrimination are good things.

            • DarkThoughts@kbin.social
              3·
              11 months ago

              The Lemmy devs, who are also tankies, yeah.
              Tankie is as much of an “insult” as Nazi is. Spreading disinformation & insults and glorifying Stalin and Mao while defending modern ruscism is just as vile and should be cancelled just the same. And it’s funny you say well-“modded” instances. I assume you mean moderated, which isn’t even done properly on Lemmy.ml itself, as they completely ignore reports of insults & disinformation from tankies.
              Whatever. Thanks for showing your true colors. At least I can tag you appropriately now.

    • Masimatutu@mander.xyz
      36·
      11 months ago

      “i am an instance admin/mod on the fediverse. by signing this pact, i hereby agree to block any instances owned by meta should they pop up on the fediverse. project92 is a real and serious threat to the health and longevity of fedi and must be fought back against at every possible opportunity”

      fedipact.online

      • Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com
        7·
        11 months ago

        This makes it just confusing? The pink heart = good, but the red cross = good too? But again the red cross seems bad as green = blocked.

        Sorry I don’t get it.

        • Masimatutu@mander.xyz
          14·
          11 months ago
          • green checkmark = blocked
          • pink heart = blocked, signed fedipact
          • yellow exclamation mark = limited
          • red cross = not blocked
          • Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com
            6·
            11 months ago

            Thank, I’m probably an idiot :-)

            Edit: I’ll get to it (my instance is small, I’m not very knowledgeable about the nitty gritty stuff, can I do it from Jerboa for example, or is it in some config file? I remember putting someone on the whitelist and thus blocking the whole fediverse…)

        • 0xtero@kbin.social
          4·
          11 months ago

          Because the people signed the pact did it long time ago, before any details about Threads federation was known. It was a typical fedi kneejerk reaction.

          • Alsephina@lemmy.ml
            5·
            11 months ago

            You’d have to be a dumbass to federate with these megacorps lol. We’re here precisely because of the decisions of one such company.

            • 0xtero@kbin.social
              3·
              11 months ago

              I guess majority on fedi are dumbasses in that case ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
              Mastodon is pretty fucked up anyway because everyone is on mastodon.social.

          • java@beehaw.org
            2·
            11 months ago

            The key detail about Threads is that it’s owned by Meta. That’s the reason to block Threads. It was known back then, so there’s nothing silly about it.