Panos Damelos (on vacation!)A few thoughts about #Meta's #ActivityPub project (and whether we should instantly block it).
Personally, I don't see much point in declaring something like that in advance. I'd like to see what they do in action, and then decide if it's needed. I'm not against interacting with Meta users, as long as it's on my terms, through the software I choose, on a server I know doesn't exploit my data.
Don't misunderstand me, I think Meta is among the worst. I have no hope that a federated Meta platform will be any less greedy and expoitative than what we've already seen from them. I would advise anyone against using their platform. However, I myself have been a daily facebook user for over a decade. A lot of people I know -and enjoy interacting with- are still there and never got interested in the Fediverse. What can you do? We are only responsible for our own decisions. But I'd still like to read their thoughts.
I am sure Meta's AP implementation will give us a lot of reasons to be against it. My guess is that they will combine ActivityPub for plain posts with closed-source, unfederated features, so that they lock users in (and give them reasons to put up with their ads or whatever they do). I think it's very probable that we may need to block them anyway, for whatever reasons - they might be a source of spam, for example. But I want to wait and see what happens in practice first.
My main point is: What if we all declare that we will indeed block them? Do we gain something? Does Meta lose something? At this point in time, I doubt it. I mean, do you think that Meta depends on the existing fediverse for content? In the first week after they open registrations, they will probably have more active users than all other fedi platforms combined. If we say we'll block them, will it stop any users from signing up to their platform? I'm afraid not.
People who consciously don't want to use a Meta platform, are probably already in the #Fediverse. Federation with ActivityPub is not Meta's main selling point. Sure, there is a buzz around decentralized services at the moment, and that won't hurt Meta's attempt, but the people who'll try it will probably try it mostly because they'll be curious about "Meta's anti-Twitter" or because of advertisement, and less because it will be "decentralized". They already have such options.
Even if we all decided to block them, then practically we'd just end up with yet another centralized Meta social media platform, with its users only interacting with each other. But even though I'm against using Meta's services, I'm not against interacting with Meta users in general, just like I have no problem emailing gmail addresses. On the contrary, I'd like their users to see, once they arrive, that they could do more or less the same things without depending on Meta. I'd like to see interaction with other fedi users becoming such an essential part of Meta's new platform, to the extent that they will be forced to play well with the rest of the Fediverse, so that their users will have a smooth experience with all of their friends/followers. And I'd like to see some of their users leaving them for other platforms if they fail to do so.
To recap: I'm also very, very suspicious of Meta and I know they don't have good intentions - I'm not suggesting that maybe they've changed and they will do things differently, to "give them a chance" first. I just don't think that declaring to block them makes much sense at this point in time. Maybe they will give us real reasons to block them once they launch their platform. But I'm not by principle against interacting with Meta users, as long as I can avoid Meta's ads, black box algorithm and data mining.
Perhaps, after all, this could make us build even better fedi platforms. Let's see things get more serious - we actually need it. And since they can't force stuff down our throats, I'm not afraid of Meta on ActivityPub. Bring it on!
Personally, I don't see much point in declaring something like that in advance. I'd like to see what they do in action, and then decide if it's needed. I'm not against interacting with Meta users, as long as it's on my terms, through the software I choose, on a server I know doesn't exploit my data.
Don't misunderstand me, I think Meta is among the worst. I have no hope that a federated Meta platform will be any less greedy and expoitative than what we've already seen from them. I would advise anyone against using their platform. However, I myself have been a daily facebook user for over a decade. A lot of people I know -and enjoy interacting with- are still there and never got interested in the Fediverse. What can you do? We are only responsible for our own decisions. But I'd still like to read their thoughts.
I am sure Meta's AP implementation will give us a lot of reasons to be against it. My guess is that they will combine ActivityPub for plain posts with closed-source, unfederated features, so that they lock users in (and give them reasons to put up with their ads or whatever they do). I think it's very probable that we may need to block them anyway, for whatever reasons - they might be a source of spam, for example. But I want to wait and see what happens in practice first.
My main point is: What if we all declare that we will indeed block them? Do we gain something? Does Meta lose something? At this point in time, I doubt it. I mean, do you think that Meta depends on the existing fediverse for content? In the first week after they open registrations, they will probably have more active users than all other fedi platforms combined. If we say we'll block them, will it stop any users from signing up to their platform? I'm afraid not.
People who consciously don't want to use a Meta platform, are probably already in the #Fediverse. Federation with ActivityPub is not Meta's main selling point. Sure, there is a buzz around decentralized services at the moment, and that won't hurt Meta's attempt, but the people who'll try it will probably try it mostly because they'll be curious about "Meta's anti-Twitter" or because of advertisement, and less because it will be "decentralized". They already have such options.
Even if we all decided to block them, then practically we'd just end up with yet another centralized Meta social media platform, with its users only interacting with each other. But even though I'm against using Meta's services, I'm not against interacting with Meta users in general, just like I have no problem emailing gmail addresses. On the contrary, I'd like their users to see, once they arrive, that they could do more or less the same things without depending on Meta. I'd like to see interaction with other fedi users becoming such an essential part of Meta's new platform, to the extent that they will be forced to play well with the rest of the Fediverse, so that their users will have a smooth experience with all of their friends/followers. And I'd like to see some of their users leaving them for other platforms if they fail to do so.
To recap: I'm also very, very suspicious of Meta and I know they don't have good intentions - I'm not suggesting that maybe they've changed and they will do things differently, to "give them a chance" first. I just don't think that declaring to block them makes much sense at this point in time. Maybe they will give us real reasons to block them once they launch their platform. But I'm not by principle against interacting with Meta users, as long as I can avoid Meta's ads, black box algorithm and data mining.
Perhaps, after all, this could make us build even better fedi platforms. Let's see things get more serious - we actually need it. And since they can't force stuff down our throats, I'm not afraid of Meta on ActivityPub. Bring it on!
Jon
Elisheva Meira ✡︎ 🌈