A clear victory for the free fediverse: Meta now says integrating with ActivityPub is "a long way out"

When Meta launched their new Twitter competitor Threads on July 5, they said that it would be compatible with the ActivityPub protocol, Mastodon, and all the other decentralized social networks in the fediverse "soon".... #threads #meta #free

https://privacy.thenexus.today/clear-victory-for-the-free-fediverse/

I think they were ever only going to do it if Threads failed.
I think it makes entry into the EU easier, but they're receiving headwinds on two fronts there. There's no need for them to implement federation if they can't overcome the other regulatory hurdles first.

Yep. Federation could conceivably respond to the EU’s requirement for interoperability – and they could do it in a way that puts a lot of barriers to people actually moving, so works well for them. Of course the EU would say that didn’t meet the requirement, which would lead to a multi-year legal battle and eventually Meta would probably pay a billion dollar fine (as they routinely do – it’s just a cost of doing business) and promise to remove the barriers (which they wouldn’t, and then there would be another multi-year legal battle).

But none of that works if the EU won’t allow Threads for some other reason!

Still, my guess is that they’ll figure out a way around the EU’s objections to Threads … we shall see …

Still, my guess is that they’ll figure out a way around the EU’s objections to Threads

I think it's more likely that they'll hope demand is high enough that the EU is forced to let them in.

I think we’re in violent agreement here: getting the EU to drop their objections is certainly one way around them! So yeah, they’ll probably try to use the demand for Threads to push back on the DMA’s anti-trust-ish provisions (which as I understand is the current blockage). And then they’ll try to use their ActivityPub integration to push back on the interoperability requirements, no doubt characterizing them as unrealistic. It’s predictable but still irritating.
Imagine of the EU mandated all social networks to be interoperable…

Like “standard phone calls have always been interoperable” ?

Like “batteries should be replaceable” ?

Or “documents file formats should be open” ?

ActivityPub should probably become a login standard, somehow as standard as SAML. Any social network should propose to login with AP, just like any social let you use email or phone number to register.

Yes all of those. I think Cory Doctorow calls it crecom or something like that
yeah, they’ll need to fix a lot of their permissions if they want to get into the EU - which is probably a much higher concern than some piddly mastodon users.
Nah, what would be the point of keeping Threads around then? They’d shut it down as soon as user numbers got too low. Same as what happened with G+
Agree, if Threads majorly flops they’d just pull the plug, add they’ve done before.

I still don’t get their target audience for Threads.

Facebook users don’t want to leave their weird boomer Internet bubble. Instagram users will continue posting pictures on Instagram and advertise their linktr.ee account where they link to their 18+ content because they’re not allowed to link in directly from Instagram, and 𝕏 users … well … they will continue using 𝕏.

Ironically the only ones wo really care about Threads is people on the Fediverse.

I think they may have realised that federating whilst they’re still not allowed to operate in the EU would hand hundreds of millions of EU users to independent instances.
It’s almost as if the entire point of Threads was to use the Twitter hate to harvest more personal data with zero interest in creating an actual longstanding platform. 🤔

Threads is pretty blatant about censorship and sharing of user data. They use terms like “a friendly space” and “convenient” to sell it to users. So you’re actually losing something by jumping ship from Twitter. The one positive for Musk era Twitter was an attempt to reduce censorship, but the crazy things the company did otherwise far outweigh it.

One of the shitty things profit driven social media sites do is curate content to create a more advertiser friendly space. It even extends to special interests and government interests. I mean what do you call that when public information is curated by the government. I sure as hell don’t want my US government telling me what I can and can not discuss in a public venue.

In the USA there’s a little thing called the first amendment. Granted these are companies and don’t necessarily have to adhere to civil rights in the same way government agencies do, but in effect they’re doing the same thing. The US government should absolutely not be coercing these US companies into censoring content, which they are.

🙄 “Saying slurs on a private forum is mah god-given right!”

There’s plenty to criticize about Twitter and Threads, but the unmoderated parts of the internet are cancer.

Also pretending that Elon doesn’t remove things he doesn’t like is a joke.

I could have made that a lot longer, but I just wanted make a few points without creating a wall of text.

Of course there’s garbage you don’t want to see in a community. But the difference is there’s an actual human being I entrust to the task of removing it (the moderator). If don’t like how a community is moderated, I can go to another community. Mods make these calls for the sake of quality and topicality of their particular community, not because of some ulterior motive.

This is in comparison to an institution of some kind using keyword algorithms to mindlessly remove intelligent discussion only because it may be against some kind of predetermined policy. The US government does this. They have official agents placed within the staff of major social media outlets for this purpose.

The only thing I said about Musk is that it’s a positive he tried to reduce censorship. I never implied that he removed censorship altogether. Twitter is still guilty of curating content same as the others. However threads has flat out stated a full tilt censorship agenda.

Can you provide some evidence for your claim of US agents on staff for censorship purposes, as well as elaborate on which speech you believe is being removed?

99% of the time I see people upset about ‘censorship’ of online spaces, they’re mad about far-right hate-speech or dangerous misinformation.

Well I’m not wikipedia here, just going on things I’ve read in past. You can either believe it or not believe it, suit yourself.

In the pre-internet days it was a well known fact that major media outlets in the USA had federal officials on staff to put the kibosh on issues of national security. That criteria has since broadened. For anyone that still watches news media on TV they can see for themselves the stories that never get past the editorial desk.

I’ve read claims of the same federal scrutiny happening for large social media outlets. These are USA companies operating in the USA so they fall under jurisdiction. They’re certainly not going to advertise that’s the case. I don’t doubt this is happening for a second and in their own best interest they keep it on the downlow.

I’m not sure I understand the comment. You meant 99% of those complaining are posting hostile shit? If so, it’s the 1% that post intelligent and legitimate counter arguments we need to allow a voice. It’s not uncommon for legislation to push through under the guise of some public benefit that further erodes our civil liberty. As US citizens we need to be vigilant about that kind of thing or we’re just throwing our freedom away.

So, nothing that any of us can research for ourselves? Odd. Well known facts shouldn’t be hard to cite…
Well known facts from the pre-internet days, no less. Sadly all of those records have been lost. Tin foil hat sad face.

using keyword algorithms to mindlessly remove intelligent discussion only because it may be against some kind of predetermined policy. The US government does this. They have official agents placed within the staff of major social media outlets for this purpose.

Please please please provide evidence of this one.

No? You’re not going to respond with any evidence at all about anything you said here? Come on man. What a let down. Why do you even write this stuff then?

Of course there’s garbage you don’t want to see in a community. But the difference is there’s an actual human being I entrust to the task of removing it (the moderator). If I don’t like how a community is moderated, I can go to another community. Mods make these calls for the sake of quality and topicality of their particular community, not because of some ulterior motive.

Unless those moderators are getting paid, you are just benefitting from unpaid labor and externalizing the costs of running the community onto volunteers.

That’s why I’m not against algorithmic moderation. The work itself is never going to be paid labor unless social media is nationalized, so it must be automated.

Reduced censorship, so long as what you’re posting paints musk in a positive light, doesn’t upset him, and so long as it’s mostly racist.

Reduced censorship. Lol. No man, just no.

Oh boy act surprised
I know there's someone picking up a phone because they called it.

I reminded of the end of season 1 of Foundation, where the Foundation stayed hidden from the empire for a long time, growing in strength and technology.

Season 2 is pretty good so far

Is that series good? I’m not subscribing to Apple TV just for that but I read the first book many years ago and I’m interested on Fundation.
That’s the neat thing, you don’t actually have to subscribe to any of these streaming services in order to watch their shows.
I’ll stop fighting when Meta no longer exists.
I’ll stop when capitalism and governments no longer exist.
Governments will always exist. Sorry to burst that bubble. They always have and they always will.
Source?

Human history. The oldest history of humanity we have is the Sumerians. From that time on every large group of people formed a government. Babylon. Arkadian. Egyptian. Greek.

Other forms of government are tribes. Hunters. Gatherers. Those are tribes.

Show us people that didn’t have a form of government and we’ll be impressed.

I see, if you define government as any collection of humans, than yes, it’s always been extant.

What I meant, however, was a group of rulers that use force to compel others to do what they would otherwise not.

Yes. Those types of people have always been around. Have you never read history before? You can aCkuALY all you want to, I don’t care. I’d rather you left that shit attitude at reddit, though.
Ah, that’s just the point - the types of people have been around for awhile, but the institutions supporting them — backing militias, basically — have not.

I can’t continue with conversation simply because of how ignorant you are. I’m not here to argue with you over the dumb things you feel are gotcha points.

Your “point” is not based in history or reality. Peace out brother, have fun with someone else.

You’re out of line. If anyone has the reddit attitude of casting aspersions rather than rebut effectively, it is you.
I’m not here to rebut anything, much less effectively. I’m not the person trying to argue dumb things for no reason.
Lmao you think there were governments when early humans were wandering around the plains of Africa in tiny little tribes?
As long as there is a limited supply of resources there will be some form of economic distribution and a government to settle disputes about that distribution.
If you argue that any attempt to resolve an economic dispute(that apple is mine!) is through government, then yes, they will exist as long as we do.
Tribalism is a form of government hate to break it to you…

So you want to reduce humanity by 99%? Because hunter gatherer lifestyle isn’t sustainable with more than 100 million people.

Oh and you also want to go back to a life expectancy of 40 years, barely any useful medicine, exorbitant child mortality, countless women dying at birth and the constant fear that your surroundings will kill you.

Sounds great!

Huh??? I never advocated for going back to a pre-agriculture society society at all, i was pushing back against the idea that governments ‘have always existed’ because of course they haven’t, that’s patently absurd since they are social constructs
You’re right, I didn’t look at the usernames and thought you were op, arguing that we don’t need governments and can go back to tribes. Sorry :/

Yeah, the extent of the fatalism is sad.

People lack both the knowledge to realize that different forms of society already existed (and do exist currently), and imagination to realize that it’s possible to move towards a different and better form.

That’s called a state, governments are the state’s employees

Euuuuh… Is it me or is a big part of the article setting up LGBTQ+ against non-lgbtq?

“One of the interesting dynamics of the discussion so far is so much of the resistance to Meta has come from queer and trans people, and that most of the loudest supporters of Meta in the fediverse are cis guys.” This sentence may be technicaly right, but it’s sooooo stupid.

Starting from there, the article seems to be as much about “us va them” than threads and meta…

Why is it stupid? The article isn’t setting up the tension, it’s describing the tension that exists.

Unless I’m mistaken, if you remove the LGBTQ community everybody that left… Is cis persons. As in general “techy” world, most of the person using fediverse (and it’s currently changing rapidly, which is good) is male.

I may very well be mistaken, but the way this sentence is made make it feels like one information is being phrased in a way that fitting a certain point of view rather than given “pure”.

Anyway, I’m probably over analysing, as usual.

Yes, I certainly constructed the sentence to highlight the different reactions. Later in the article I say “And by prioritizing their desire to be embraced by Meta over queer and trans people’s safety, Meta’s cis advocates undercut their claims to be allies in ways that may be hard to recover from” – which is true no matter what Meta does or doesn’t wind up doing with Threads. Of course it’s not the only thing going on, but I think it’s important enough that it’s worth highlighting.

Threads seems to have achieved its immediate strategic goal of setting fire to zombie Twitter so that it'd stay dead; building it into an actual Twitter replacement could take years, and in the meanwhile there's plenty of time for Mastodon et al to keep hoovering up users too.

Personally, I don't post anything on Threads, and haven't really tried to obtain any followers there, but I do log on and view/like content from famous people I used to follow on Twitter in the hopes that if they get enough engagement on Threads they'll cut out Twitter altogether.