54
Tame your inner dictator!
(lemmy.world)
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
54 points (69.0% liked)
Fediverse
28216 readers
145 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You're not understanding that growth on fediverse instances run by Meta is ultimately bad for the fediverse in the long run.
Let me try explaining like this: Imagine there's an instance called meta.world and it gets hugely popular. Whenever you browse the all feed, it seems like 95% of the posts are from meta.world. Everybody hates that it ended up this way, and everybody tried to fight it, but it just inevitably happened because Meta has the fastest and most stable servers, and because there are a ton of funny users on Threads who only post to meta.world because Threads heavily favors those communities in their app. Then one day Meta decides that they don't want to support the fediverse anymore, so they close off access to meta.world. So effectively 95% of the "fediverse" as we knew it vanishes, and you have to join Threads if you want access to those communities again.
It's the threat of that scenario that has a lot of people wanting to block Meta from the start.
Great point. I get this threat, but do you think closing off would help this? I don't believe anyone that respects privacy (the type of user that currently uses federated social media) would join meta's instance. But by defederating, you're forcing everyone with friends outside this privacy-conscious circle to join meta, and overtime find themselves using it more and more, since it's more convenient and frankly way more users are there!
By not defederating, you're giving everyone the option to stay here and have privacy while being able to interact with all their friends, and maybe even convince some of their friends to join! (you would be able to convince them since the underlying protocol is literally the same, but they will gain privacy and won't see ads, I'd say that's compelling!)
You say you understand my point about the threat of Meta consuming the entirety of the fediverse, but then you talk about privacy, which is completely irrelevant to my point. What does privacy matter when Meta gains 95% share of the fediverse communities and then closes them off to only Threads users? In that situation, your privacy is completely gone. You have to join Threads to get back in to the old fediverse that Meta took away.
If you pay attention to my response, I've said that if you close them now, considering how many users they've amassed in like 1 day you would have to join threads (at least the average user will). And when you see the convenience there, you will use Fediverse less and less, so what's the point?
What I mean by understanding your point is that you're right, that's a threat, but I believe what I've just said is also a scenario. This is a dilemma.
Yeah, that's what the defederaters are advocating. You can't mix Meta with the fediverse, because Meta will consume it. So if you want to participate in Threads, then you have to join Threads.
Assuming the collective fediverse goes through with defederating from Meta, then there's nothing stopping anybody from creating their own little niche in the fediverse that remains federated with Meta. I wouldn't argue against that.