I used to think that there would be 1, main ‘Fediverse’ with all of the ‘big instances’ connected to each other. The recent Threads debacle has shown me otherwise.

The point of the Fediverse is that there is no one single entity, or group of entities, dominating it all.

Right now it feels like whatever the big instances do, we kind of have to go along with to be a part of anything. As the Fediverse grows, there will be more options to suit different types of users.

I think it’s fine if big instances federate with Threads and it’s fine if they don’t. People can just join instances that align with what they want. It’s not like defederating means being cut out of the Fediverse, that’s not possible.

Great design. I’m eager to see how it plays out.

  • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    If the majority of users on Lemmy.world does not want to be federated with meta then Lemmy.world will lose those users and then no longer be the power they currently are with influence over the fediverse.

    Also I believe it’s disingenuous to equate explodingheads, which was defederated for being extremely toxic due to its lack of moderation and meta which presumably has more resources to devote to moderation than any fedi instance (of course they are still terrible at it)

    I’m for defederating with meta when the time comes because I don’t think that their influence is healthy for the fediverse and don’t think that most admins could handle the burdens that would come with federating with them. Lemmy.world (and mastodon.social and a few others) is a big enough instance that they could handle those challenges. I’ve said before that if meta only sticks to the open source AP spec then the risks are much less and so that should be the criteria for federation

    • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Also I believe it’s disingenuous to equate explodingheads, which was defederated for being extremely toxic due to its lack of moderation

      Okay, right here, stop for a second and think. Picture in your head what happens on Meta platforms daily. Think about the rampant hate, harassment (especially of LGBTQIA people) and open radicalization/right wing propaganda/science denial that goes on completely unchecked on all platforms Meta, and has for years – despite Zuck’s yearly hangdog visits to Congress and the EU denying all problems while simultaneously promising to do better.

      And as an extra mental boot, think of all the people – especially the young ones – who get openly and unrestrainedly bullied on Meta platforms, Lord of the Flies style, to the literal point of attempted or completed suicide. And consider how all Meta does, each and every time it happens, is mouth platitudes about thoughts, prayers, and their overwhelming commitment to safe platforms plus zero tolerance for bullying, as though that shit isn’t front and center on their platforms, ALWAYS.

      Okay, carry on:

      and meta which presumably has more resources to devote to moderation than any fedi instance (of course they are still terrible at it)

      It’s not a matter of being terrible, and I’m not saying you’re wrong, but terrible implies that they try and fail.

      I posit that they do not try: this is their actual profit structure.

      It’s a matter of willfully avoiding even basic moderation duties because higher emotional load equals more engagement, more engagement means more content generation, more content generation means more user data and targeted ad revenue.

      Apples and oranges, swings and roundabouts. Whatever you think of federating with Threads, do it or don’t do it, there really is NO possible comparison between Meta platforms and the Fediverse, nor how they are run and moderated (or not), nor the goals that motivate the administrators of both.