I just saw that lemmy.ml has pre-emptively defederated from threads. Are there any plans to do that here? I personally want nothing to do with Meta/Facebook, and I’m sure that’s not an unpopular opinion around here.

edit: y’all, please pay attention to where you are when coming from all.

edit again: kbin really ought to make a post’s home instance more clear.

  • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m personally opposed to defederation in all but the most extreme circumstances. I think more people communicating, even through a questionable platform, could be a could thing. A lot of people are speculating that this is some scheme to kill the fediverse but there’s no real evidence of this yet, and frankly, I’m not convinced we’re big enough that Meta would really consider us a threat. If evidence of such a scheme does materialize, then obviously at that point defederation makes sense. But at this point, I think defederation (and denying potentially millions of people from experiencing the fediverse) solely on speculation seems like a bad idea.

    I was actually thinking of suggesting a defederation policy be drafted, so that we can have clear circumstances under which we would or would not defederate. That way we can operate off of consensus rather than the whims of admins—well-intentioned as they may be. Curious what the community thinks of that idea, whatever the decision on this particular topic ends up being.

    • Celediel@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I get where you’re coming from, but honestly, I think Facebook’s history is enough evidence.

    • poVoq@slrpnk.netM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I did write down some “typical reasons” for de-federation in our Wiki: https://wiki.f-hub.org/books/slrpnknet/page/lemmy-instance

      But it is intentionally a bit vague and left open for interpretation as there will be always edge-cases and people trying to game rules. So no, I don’t think it will be ever possible to have “clear circumstances under which we would or would not defederate”, its always a bit of an individual judgement call related to both our specific community here and the health of the wider Fediverse.

      In the specific case of Threads, I think it would probably not matter so much for our specific community here, but the threat to the wider Fediverse is very real and warrants a coordinated attempt to keep them out as best as we can.

      And “denying potentially millions of people from experiencing the fediverse” is just not the case. They are free to make an account on another Fediverse server that is not run by a known bad actor like Facebook.

    • Andy@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with this.

      I think that in the long run, if the Fediverse model is successful then a confrontation is inevitable, but i think it makes sense to defederate as a response to Meta doing something specific and deplorable rather than just for joining.

      I also like the idea of drafting a defederation policy.

      • Celediel@slrpnk.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Meta doing something specific and deplorable

        Does their history not count? Threads doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

        • Andy@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s definitely sufficient if the goal is to cast a judgement on their ethics. But I think the point of defederating isn’t to express general disapproval. It’s to maintain the best possible experience for the users of the instance. Defederating from Facebook just seems like it’s motivated by giving them the middle finger. Which is fine, but as a tool, I don’t think that’s what federating is for.

          I don’t feel strongly about this, though. It’s an opinion. If the rest of the instance or the admins decided to defed meta I would not care at all.

          • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.netM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I think considering how incredibly harmful Facebook/Meta has been to society, and that Meta intentionally pushes divisive and hateful content because it creates the most engagement, it makes sense from a pragmatic point of view to simply pre-emptively block them in all ways possible. Their entire history as a company has shown they will make anyone who uses their services, and society as a whole, worse off. Intentional or otherwise. It need not be motivated from a metaphorical middle finger, but as self-defense against a practical certainly of something bad coming from interaction with them.

            It takes only a short glance at the ‘Facebook papers’ leak to see why it makes sense to distance ourselves as much as possible:

            The so-called “Facebook Papers” include a mix of presentations, research studies, discussion threads and strategy memos. What the documents reveal about Facebook’s behavior is stark and damning. They show how some of Zuckerberg’s public claims about Facebook’s principles and activities clashed with internal company findings. For example, he once told Congress that Facebook removes 94 percent of the hate speech it finds. But the inverse was true — according to internal estimates, the number was probably less than 5 percent.

            Ahead of the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, Facebook’s efforts to stem the flow of misinformation proliferating on its networks fell short. Company employees were unhappy as far-right groups spread the call to join the “Stop the Steal” rally that preceded the attack.

            “This is not a new problem,” one unnamed employee fumed on Workplace, an internal message system, on Jan. 6. “We have been watching this behavior from politicians like Trump, and the — at best — wishy washy actions of company leadership, for years now. We have been reading the [farewell] posts from trusted, experienced and loved colleagues who write that they simply cannot conscience working for a company that does not do more to mitigate the negative effects on its platform.”

            The Facebook Papers also make clear how Zuckerberg prioritized maximum engagement and the company’s bottom line over ethical concerns about safety and best practices. While he espouses a form of free speech maximalism in public in the United States, he has participated in enabling regimes of censorship elsewhere. My colleagues also pointed to a 2019 episode in Vietnam, where Zuckerberg personally decided to comply with demands from the autocratic government in Hanoi to censor dissident voices on his platform.

            “Ahead of Vietnam’s party congress in January, Facebook significantly increased censorship of ‘anti-state’ posts, giving the government near-total control over the platform, according to local activists and free speech advocates,” my colleagues reported.

            The Facebook Papers “are astonishing for two reasons,” wrote the Atlantic’s Adrienne LaFrance. “First, because their sheer volume is unbelievable. And second, because these documents leave little room for doubt about Facebook’s crucial role in advancing the cause of authoritarianism in America and around the world. Authoritarianism predates the rise of Facebook, of course. But Facebook makes it much easier for authoritarians to win.

            To assume that some good could come from interacting with Meta is, in my honest opinion, a naive stance. But that’s just my two cents.

            • Andy@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m sort of tired of talking about this, particularly because it’s all academic: they don’t offer any federated instance currently to defederate from. But I want to clarify my reasoning.

              My point is NOT that we should “gIvE tHeM a ChANce!” We all know they are run by greedy, exploitative, untrustworthy people.

              My point is that I think our response should be rooted in causes and effects rather than vibes. If they offered a federated instance that I had friends on, I’d want to be able to see my friends posts and have them see mine. And if Facebook then tried to find ways to push ads to a remote instance, then we’d obviously defederate. Because that’s an appropriate tool to correct a specific harm.

              That’s all I’m saying. Currently, Facebook has no means of affecting my experience on this instance, so I don’t care whether we preemptively reject them from federating. The moment that they DO affect my experience, they’ll obviously be booted. That’s good enough for me.

              • Celediel@slrpnk.netOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                My point is that I think our response should be rooted in causes and effects rather than vibes.

                I gotta be perfectly honest here; if despite all the discussion that’s happened in this thread, you can still say something like this, then I really don’t think anything we’ve said has really gotten through to you, and I too “tire of talking about this.”

          • Celediel@slrpnk.netOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Defederating from Facebook just seems like it’s motivated by giving them the middle finger.

            Well I’ve found where we disagree! I think defederating from Threads is more of a safeguard of the users of this instance from Meta’s predatory data practices, and history of employing the classic Embrace, Extend, Extinguish strategy. Personally, I think having zero connection to anything run by Meta is certainly giving the users of the instance the best possible experience.

            • Andy@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I want to point out again that currently, Facebook offers no federated instance to defederate from. They’ve promised this in the future, and it may never happen, so it’s all academic.

              Also, I don’t feel strongly about any of this. People are free to ignore me.

              With that said, if Facebook did offer a federated product I would want to federate so I could see content from friends and family on that instance. Facebook can’t harvest data or show me to ads on a different instance. If they tried to do something really stupid, like push ads to me through by posting them on behalf of my grandma, THEN I’d agree we should defederate, and most likely we wouldn’t need to hold a vote, because the admins of this instance would just send out an announcement that Facebook is in violation of the instance’s guidelines and has refused to correct behavior, so they’re being defederated, as dictated by the defederation policy.

              I think that’s how it should work.