So how do I propose we fight #Meta? Through “lobby” servers that specifically federate with Meta. They could play a crucial role in facilitating the migration of Meta users to social media platforms that are not owned by Meta. Here’s how:

Lobby servers can bridge communities. They act as intermediaries that connect different social media platforms, including Meta-owned ones, with non-Meta platforms. By establishing federated connections, lobby servers enable users on Meta’s network to interact with users on other platforms, creating bridges between communities. This connectivity exposes Meta users to alternative platforms, offering them the opportunity to explore and engage with a broader range of social media experiences beyond Meta’s ecosystem.

They’re also critical for syndicating content between Meta-owned social networks and non-Meta platforms. By federating with Meta, lobby servers can pull content from Meta’s network and redistribute it to other federated platforms. This syndication allows users on non-Meta platforms to access and engage with Meta users’ content, thereby exposing them to different perspectives and encouraging cross-platform interactions. It also encourages Meta users to explore content from non-Meta platforms, promoting diversification and reducing their reliance on Meta-owned networks.

Lobby servers can enhance the discoverability of non-Meta platforms for Meta users by providing recommendations and highlighting the benefits of alternative social media experiences. Through federated connections, lobby servers can expose Meta users to content, communities, and conversations happening on non-Meta platforms, enticing them to explore and potentially transition to these platforms. By curating and promoting relevant content from diverse sources, lobby servers can effectively showcase the value and appeal of social media platforms that are independent of Meta’s ownership.

Data portability is also important. Lobby servers can assist in facilitating the movement of user data and profiles from Meta-owned networks to non-Meta platforms. By leveraging federated connections, lobby servers can enable Meta users to export their data and import it into alternative platforms, simplifying the transition process. This data portability empowers users by providing them with the freedom to choose platforms that align with their preferences while preserving their existing social connections and content.

By acting as an intermediary between Meta and non-Meta platforms, the lobby server opens up avenues for users to explore and engage with alternative social media platforms, reducing their dependence on Meta. It fosters a diverse and interconnected ecosystem, exposing Meta users to different communities, perspectives, and content from platforms outside Meta’s control. As users discover the benefits and value of non-Meta platforms, the lobby server helps to create a more competitive landscape, thereby challenging and diminishing Meta’s dominant position in the social media sphere.

A lobby server serves as a superior migration path for Meta users to join the rest of the Fediverse compared to expecting them to delete their accounts and switch to a non-federating #Mastodon server. By utilizing a lobby server, Meta users can transition gradually while retaining their existing social connections and gradually exploring the broader #Fediverse. This approach ensures a seamless transition, preserves relationships, exposes users to diverse content and communities, and facilitates a gradual shift in user behavior. The lobby server enables Meta users to engage with alternative platforms at their own pace, making the migration process more accessible, appealing, and conducive to fostering a decentralized and inclusive social media landscape.

This is how we fight Meta, and this is how federation with Meta could potentially end Meta’s monopoly on social media.

Obviously, #Meta has something to gain by federating through #ActivityPub. If they saw no benefit in joining the #Fediverse, they wouldn’t do it. So let’s explore what they might hope to achieve.

Meta might be hoping to re-enforce their dominance. This is obvious when you look at their immediate objective: to kill Twitter. Federating with other platforms actually strengthens their ability to do this because Twitter is unlikely to federate. And what’s more, Twitter closed off their API access. When Meta rolls out #P92 (a.k.a., #Threads), they’ll have a platform that’s much more adaptable and extensible than Twitter’s. This could lead to both devs and users abandoning Twitter in favour of Meta’s Twitter competitor.

Another assumption Meta might have is that their immense user base, combined with federated connections, would give it even more control over the decentralized network. They might hope that this user base will prove to result in Threads becoming the central hub of the Fediverse, allowing them to exert significant influence and dictate the terms of interoperability, potentially stifling competition and innovation.

This is a big gamble. So why might Meta want to make this gamble anyway?

Federation could serve as a strategic move by Meta to address antitrust concerns. By appearing open to interoperability, Meta could argue that it is fostering competition and avoiding a complete defederation scenario. This approach may allow Meta to maintain its dominance while alleviating regulatory pressures.

But the biggest thing Meta might hope to achieve is fragmentation and consolidation of the Fediverse. If Meta establishes its dominance within the federation, it may exert control and influence in a way that undermines the original vision of a decentralized and open network. This consolidation of power could hinder the potential benefits of federation, such as increased user choice and data control.

On this last point, defederation might prove to help Meta rather than hinder it since defederation creates the conditions for more fragmentation.

Defederation within the Fediverse leads to fragmentation, inadvertently creating conditions that contribute to Meta’s dominance in the social media landscape. As platforms disconnect and sever their connections, the loss of interoperability and weakened network effects diminish the overall appeal and competitive strength of the Fediverse.

This fragmentation allows Meta, with its vast user base and resources, to emerge as a central hub of connectivity, attracting users seeking a more cohesive experience. The limitations in content distribution and discoverability further solidify Meta’s dominance, as it leverages its centralized network to offer a comprehensive and accessible content experience. Efforts to maintain a connected and cohesive federated network are essential to safeguard the principles of decentralization and prevent fragmentation from undermining the potential of the Fediverse as a viable alternative to Meta’s dominance.

The more the Fediverse fragments, the more Meta is likely to dominate it and consolidate its power.

However, as much as some people might want complete defederation of Meta – demanding not just defederation of Meta, but also defederation of all servers that federate with Meta – I believe that’s a losing battle. To a degree, there might be fragmentation of the Fediverse. But it’s unlikely we will see a multitude of competing Fediverses that are all powered by ActivityPub.

To enforce total defederation will require whitelisting, and policing of that whitelist. Who will decide which server is on that whitelist? It would need to be a central entity. And the moment you have a central entity deciding who is on the whitelist is the moment that version of the Fediverse centralizes.

This defeats the purpose of the Fediverse – which is decentralization.

So what can be done to actually deal with Meta’s threat? I have some ideas on how to use federation to fight Meta.