Found this post super informative as it relates to Mastodon, and thought Lemmy might also benefit from this perspective. I'm not sure I share his optimism, but his points seem sound to dampen some of the alarm bells over Meta joining the Fediverse.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Nollij@lemmy.fmhy.ml 53 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You've completely missed the point. It's not that Facebook (and by extension, their users) will connect to Mastodon, it's that they will take over Mastodon, seizing all control for themselves, and coopting the existing userbase.

Right now it's a separate product. Just like people know that Twitter is not Mastodon, Threads isn't either. If you want to reach Twitter users, you get a Twitter account. If you want to reach Mastodon users, you get a Mastodon account. Facebook is planning to market themselves as the best way to enter the Mastodon ecosystem. Before long, they will be the absolute dominant server. Then they will have control, because defederation is a weapon they can wield and not vice-versa.

This is not theoretical, either. Google did the EXACT same thing back with Google Talk and the XMPP protocol. And we know how Facebook operates, so we know that this will eventually happen. The only way to stop it is before it starts - Facebook users need to be unhappy (at Facebook) that they can't reach Mastodon users, so that defederation remains their own problem.

(Separately, I agree with you that Lemmy needs to become more accessible to the common user. But simply handing it all over to someone as awful as Zuck is not the way)

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It’s going to be an arms race to make sure free software provides a better service than Threads does, and that people know about it. We can’t be satisfied with unpolished diy software for nerds any more.

[–] IrrationalAndroid@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This might be a very pessimistic take, but I strongly feel like any average Joe will rather pick the Meta/big corp alternative to the FOSS one. The fact that Meta's got a reputation for Facebook and Instagram while Mastodon's got a reputation for being confusing is... very not promising. Basically I feel like this is a lost race already. Hope it's just me.

[–] spaduf@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago

Lol Meta has a reputation for stealing data, denying genocide, platforming bigots, and interfering in elections. The idea that the name Facebook wasn't so toxic that one of the largest tech companies did a massive rebranding in the wake of major scandal (see threatening democracy) is a fantasy.

[–] Kaldo@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

And that's precisely why the worry, because there is no chance in hell that fediverse can provide a better, stable and more feature-filled service than an established multibillion corporation like meta.

[–] spaduf@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think the only problem here is that Eugene has shown absolutely no interest in developing that way. I think that's what feels so silly about this whole post, he's forgetting that the ways in which Mastodon are opinionated are not popular even among Mastodon essentialists.

[–] JoJo@social.fossware.space 1 points 1 year ago

The only way they co-opt the existing userbase is if everyone defederates from them and people who need/want a bigger network have no option but to move to Threads. This is what happened to XMPP and we risk doing it to ourselves this time around.

I'm not saying no instance should defederate. There are good reasons to avoid them. But if there are no independent instances federated with them, Meta dominates the space by default and without anywhere else for its users to go (unless they want a smaller network and know about the existence of defederated instances).