Skip Navigation
Remote View
Fediverse @lemmy.world
sapient [they/them] @infosec.pub

Why Defederating from Facebook/Meta is So Important

I strongly encourage instance admins to defederate from Facebook/Threads/Meta.

They aren't some new, bright-eyed group with no track record. They're a borderline Machiavellian megacorporation with a long and continuing history of extremely hostile actions:

  • Helping enhance genocides in countries
  • Openly and willingly taking part in political manipulation (see Cambridge Analytica)
  • Actively have campaigned against net neutrality and attempted to make "facebook" most of the internet for members of countries with weaker internet infra - directly contributing to their amplification of genocide (see the genocide link for info)
  • Using their users as non-consenting subjects to psychological experiments.
  • Absolutely ludicrous invasions of privacy - even if they aren't able to do this directly to the Fediverse, it illustrates their attitude.
  • Even now, they're on-record of attempting to get instance admins to do backdoor discussions and sign NDAs.

Yes, I know one of the Mastodon folks have said they're not worried. Frankly, I think they're being laughably naive >.<. Facebook/Meta - and Instagram's CEO - might say pretty words - but words are cheap and from a known-hostile entity like Meta/Facebook they are almost certainly just a manipulation strategy.

In my view, they should be discarded as entirely irrelevant, or viewed as deliberate lies, given their continued atrocious behaviour and open manipulation of vast swathes of the population.

Facebook have large amounts of experience on how to attack and astroturf social media communities - hell I would be very unsurprised if they are already doing it, but it's difficult to say without solid evidence .

Why should we believe anything they say, ever? Why should we believe they aren't just trying to destroy a competitor before it gets going properly, or worse, turn it into yet another arm of their sprawling network of services, via Embrace, Extend, Extinguish - or perhaps Embrace, Extend, Consume would be a better term in this case?

When will we ever learn that openly-manipulative, openly-assimilationist corporations need to be shoved out before they can gain any foothold and subsume our network and relegate it to the annals of history?

I've seen plenty of arguments claiming that it's "anti-open-source" to defederate, or that it means we aren't "resilient", which is wrong .:

  • Open source isn't about blindly trusting every organisation that participates in a network, especially not one which is known-hostile. Threads can start their own ActivityPub network if they really want or implement the protocol for themselves. It doesn't mean we lose the right to kick them out of most - or all - of our instances ..
  • Defederation is part of how the fediverse is resilient. It is the immune system of the network against hostile actors (it can be used in other ways, too, of course). Facebook, I think, is a textbook example of a hostile actor, and has such an unimaginably bad record that anything they say should be treated as a form of manipulation.

Edit 1 - Some More Arguments

In this thread, I've seen some more arguments about Meta/FB federation:

  • Defederation doesn't stop them from receiving our public content:
    • This is true, but very incomplete. The content you post is public, but what Meta/Facebook is really after is having their users interact with content. Defederation prevents this.
  • Federation will attract more users:
    • Only if Threads makes it trivial to move/make accounts on other instances, and makes the fact it's a federation clear to the users, and doesn't end up hosting most communities by sheer mass or outright manipulation.
    • Given that Threads as a platform is not open source - you can't host your own "Threads Server" instance - and presumably their app only works with the Threads Server that they run - this is very unlikely. Unless they also make Threads a Mastodon/Calckey/KBin/etc. client.
    • Therefore, their app is probably intending to make itself their user's primary interaction method for the Fediverse, while also making sure that any attempt to migrate off is met with unfamiliar interfaces because no-one else can host a server that can interface with it.
    • Ergo, they want to strongly incentivize people to stay within their walled garden version of the Fediverse by ensuring the rest remains unfamiliar - breaking the momentum of the current movement towards it. .
  • We just need to create "better" front ends:
    • This is a good long-term strategy, because of the cycle of enshittification.
    • Facebook/Meta has far more resources than us to improve the "slickness" of their clients at this time. Until the fediverse grows more, and while they aren't yet under immediate pressure to make their app profitable via enshittification and advertising, we won't manage >.<
    • This also assumes that Facebook/Meta won't engage in efforts to make this harder e.g. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish/Consume, or social manipulation attempts.
    • Therefore we should defederate and still keep working on making improvements. This strategy of "better clients" is only viable in combination with defederation.

PART 2 (post got too long!)

581 comments

  • The craziest thing to me is that people seem to be lining up to make excuses for Meta. We learned the first week of this migration that defederating can get messy, we saw it right away with Beehaw.

    Had Beehaw defederated from the larger instances sooner, then there would have been no outrage in the community over it. But while Lemmy was seeing a lot of growth, a lot of the big communities were being made on beehaw. All of the sudden, people were unable to access these communities properly and they were PISSED.

    Guys, look around! Threads has what, 10 million users already? We have like, a hundred thousand, maybe a few hundred thousand at best? They will no doubt have huge communities formed by the time they decide they want to start federating. The ratio of Lemmy/Kbin users to threads users will be 100:1.

    If we federate with Meta we basically have no choice but to use the communities they host. People only want to use 1 community (the issue of duplicate communities is brought up daily), so they will flock to the largest one. When Meta decides they don’t want to play nice with us anymore (and they will, it is never profitable to let people access all your content completely free, and shareholders will come knocking), defederation is going to decimate whats left here. Personally I think the place would implode, and many would migrate to where the content is.

    • The craziest thing to me is that people seem to be lining up to make excuses for Meta.

      You're surprised Zuck has bots?

      He's basically one himself.

    • Ultimately this is the thing to worry about. Threads will get the largest communities and as a result the main amount of attention and when/if Meta decides to defederate, it will ruin things. Also, people will generally give zero shits about federation because 99.9% of content will be on meta's instance.

      Ironically, the main thing keeping fediverse from being more popular (the decentralized approach and "multiple places the same community can exist") are going to be the thing that kills it if Meta gets involved and becomes the big boy.

      Idunno what is arguably worse. The fediverse being restricted to more "technical" folks who give a shit, and thus a far more limited audience than a central platform, or being suddenly disconnected from the hivemind after taking all the content.

      (Fwiw, I absolutely think that the Threads fediverse plan is to totally absorb all the content and become the main place for it then possibly pull the plug but honestly at that point they won't even need to the usage stats will basically do the same thing for them.)

    • I don't think accepting reality is making excuses.

      Comparing meta to beehaw, or really anything else, is truly coming up short. Meta is the 8 ton gorilla in the corner. If the numbers that were released about 30 mllion people on Threads is true, they instantly have 10x the total population, and that numbers going to go up as more people stumble upon it.

      Point being, Threads doesn't need any other communities. People using Threads are those people who have never used reddit, and never would have signed up for lemmy. These people are also the same ones who don't care about if their content is coming from a federated source, or just Threads.

      • Point being, Threads doesn't need any other communities. People using Threads are those people who have never used reddit, and never would have signed up for lemmy. These people are also the same ones who don't care about if their content is coming from a federated source, or just Threads.

        And hence, defederation is a good idea.

        Defederation is to protect us from them. You are absolutely right that they aren't comparable to beehaw in size - now imagine if people here start joining the communities on Threads (not formal ones cus threads doesn't have those), and we later decide to defederate, as some have proposed? Beehaw alone caused a massive clusterfuck, now imagine an instance with 10000x more users and power and concentrated community being let in?

      • The fact they don't need us is entirely the danger. They will have a controlling leverage of users and content. If they are the biggest player in the fediverse, the fediverse itself is beholden to courting them.

        People don't want to lose what they get used to. Beehaw defederating from [Lemmy.world] is a good example. The defederation is far worse for Beehaw than it is for [Lemmy.world], because it means people will leave their smaller instance to get the content of the larger instance because [Lemmy.World] is such an enormous player in the space.

        This problem would be infinitely worse with Meta if they become the larger instance, who after becoming a mainstay here will eventually be the entire space. and if they eventually wall themselves off - which they will, everyone who has built communities up with them will leave with them. The fact they don't need us is why it's dangerous.> eople using Threads are those people who have never used reddit, and never would have signed up for lemmy.

        People using Threads are those people who have never used reddit, and never would have signed up for lemmy.

        this will only be true at first. afterwards, the people who would have signed up for mastodon will instead sign up for Threads. They don't just bring in new users, they also parasite users who were at all interested. Long term sabotages the organic growth of the decenterlized space. We build up leverage slowly, but once they are here they have all the power.

    • Seem is a perfect word - remember you have no reliable way of telling if these are legions of real people, good people, bots, etc. don’t let masses online shake you so easily! You too could be a thousand account echo chamber legion if you wanted to.

      That’s how these people propagandize and brainwash societies by making use of a social mechanism we have which relies on power in numbers

    • You can be sure a good deal of Meta bootlickers here are astroturfing accounts. Meta's business is to manipulate public perceptions and opinions, and astroturfing is definitely one of the tools employed.

    • I think there are multiple illusions into using one community. I don't think people do. The average user love instagram when it was for sharing photos, facebook before it was for grandparents, vine (now tik tok) when it was for funny clips, youtube for silly content, reddit for thread format speaking, snapchat for stupid private chats. If we are talking about centralized communication I'm not so sure that is the case either. The reason all of those platforms I just mentioned got ruined for the most part is being of the growth of influencing and monetization. Once capitalism came in it completely changed the original intent of why the user liked those platforms, I doubt most of them even remember why they liked it when they joined it changed so fast. What people want, without actually realizing it, are the same services without the garbage product they've excepted and its turned into.

    • If we federate with Meta we basically have no choice but to use the communities they host. People only want to use 1 community (the issue of duplicate communities is brought up daily), so they will flock to the largest one. When Meta decides they don’t want to play nice with us anymore (and they will, it is never profitable to let people access all your content completely free, and shareholders will come knocking), defederation is going to decimate whats left here. Personally I think the place would implode, and many would migrate to where the content is.

      Except that Threads isn't organized around topics / communities, it's organized like Insta / Twitter around following people, so there's no communities to flock to.

      The craziest thing to me is that people seem to be lining up to make excuses for Meta.

      I'm not here to make excuses for Meta, but not a single one of these "sky is falling" posts actually articulate any real danger with federation. They just list all the bad things that have come out of Facebook to imply that surely something bad must happen here too then.

      • I'm not here to make excuses for Meta, but not a single one of these "sky is falling" posts actually articulate any real danger with federation. They just list all the bad things that have come out of Facebook to imply that surely something bad must happen here too then.

        I did, if you read it. Past and continued malicious behaviour + open manipulativity means that what they say cannot be trusted.

        Except that Threads isn't organized around topics / communities, it's organized like Insta / Twitter around following people, so there's no communities to flock to.

        Even if there aren't formal Communities (as in, like Lemmy), there are still communities of people.

      • Let me put it this way: advocating for Meta being federated with us is like asking to keep a bear in the same room as the family chihuahua.

        Here I am saying “gee, I don’t think we should keep a bear and a chihuahua in the same room together. This seems like a really bad idea. Bears are pretty violent and this dog has no way to defend itself”.

        Your reply is “Well bears eat salmon, not dogs, so i’m not worried about it. If the bear didn’t have good intentions, why would he be getting in the room with the dog? Besides, if he does start getting violent, we can just take the bear out of the room and separate the two.”

        Nah man, i just like the dog, and I don’t need him getting fucked up. If you want the bear you can hang out with him outside, and have the same experience you would have had if he was inside. I get he keeps trying to come in, but I don’t see how its worth the risk to actually let him in.

      • not a single one of these “sky is falling” posts actually articulate any real danger with federation

        Dunno about the other posts, but this article talks about how Google killed XMPP, which is extremely relevant to what could happen to ActivityPub if Meta gets its way.

        https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html

  • The post is too big for my next edit, so here is the next edit in a comment:

    Edit 2 - Clarification, Expanding on Facebook's Behaviour, Discussion of Admin-FB Meetups

    I want to clarify the specific dangers of Meta/FB, as well as some terminology.

    Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, and Embrace, Extend, Consume

    The link I posted approximately explains EEE, but in this thread I've used the phrase "Embrace, Extend, Consume", to illustrate a slightly modified form of this behaviour.

    Embrace, Extend, Consume is like Embrace, Extend, Extinguish except the end goal isn’t complete annihilation of the target. Instead of defederating at the endpoint, Meta/FB just dominates the entire standard, and anyone who steps out of line is forced into a miniscule network of others.

    They can then use this dominant position to buy out or consume large instances, or for example, force data collection features into the standard and aggressively defederate anyone else who doesn’t comply >.< - because they're so big, most instances will comply in the service of "content".

    Such a dominant position can even be obtained simply by sheer user mass, which Threads already has to some degree, as long as the relevant instance has large amounts of financial resources to buy out instances.

    In this way, they consume the network entirely, which doesn’t necessarily destroy the communities but essentially Borg-ifies them and renders people unable to leave their grasp.

    Facebook/Meta-Specific Threats: Information Warfare & Manipulation

    One of the major specific threats of Meta/FB in particular is their long and continued history of engaging in what essentially amounts to large-scale psychological manipulation and information warfare towards it's various goals (money, total domination of human communication, subsuming the internet in countries where the infrastructure is still too small to resist a single corporation restricting it's content, political manipulation, collection of ever more data, etc.), against both it's users and non-users.

    They have well over a decade of experience in this, hundreds of times more users than us (providing good cloaking for astroturfers), and untold amounts of labour, research and other resources have been poured specifically into figuring out the most effective ways to manipulate social groups via techniques like astroturfing, algorithmic prioritization, and more sophisticated strategies I am not aware of. All backed by data from literally billions of human beings >.<

    This means that exposing the Fediverse to Facebook/Meta is essentially exposing us all to one of the most organised and sophisticated information warfare machines that has ever been created. Cutting off the connections immediately (as in the other analogy by @BreakingBad@lemmy.world) not only protects from direct EEE/EEC, but also makes it harder for Meta/Facebook to influence, dominate, and consume the conversation here, either by sheer user-mass, or by malicious information warfare (or even unintentional consequences of their algorithms), or by a combination of all of these.

    We know they are extremely malicious and willing to use these methods towards real-life, ultra-harmful ends. Examples are at the start of this post :)

    For hypothetical examples on how this might work - in reality it might be different in the specifics (these are just illustrative):

    • Meta/FB could start a campaign (maybe astroturfed) for "user safety", where they encourage people to distrust users from smaller instances or any user with their instance address marker not on @threads.<whatever their url>
    • Meta/FB could add "secure messaging" (lol, it's facebook), but only between threads users. Then they could push the idea that ActivityPub is bad for privacy (the DMs are, but just use Matrix ;p - if you post stuff publicly, it makes sense that it's public).
    • Meta/FB could by simple user mass result in most communities being on Threads. People tend to drift towards more populous communities about the same topic, in general, and Threads unbalances the user ratios so much that everyone would just go to those >.< (as opposed to right now, where we have similar sized communities on several large instances, where most people subscribe to most of them)
    • Meta/FB could use social engineering to push for changes to the ActivityPub protocol that are harder for other ActivityPub servers to implement ., or even ones that are hard for non-proprietary clients to implement. For example, embedding DRM in the protocol or something like that.
    • Meta's algorithms could over time shift towards deprioritising non-"paid"/"verified" Threads users.
    • It's already been explained how the app as we know it essentially makes it hard for people to leave due to the fact only they have access to their server software and they also ensure that the app is only a specific client for this service.

    Instance Admins, and the "Friendliness" of Meta

    Some instance admins have been in contact with Meta/FB. It does make sense for at least some of them to do "due dilligence", but I've seen in at least one post a comment on the friendliness and cooperativeness of the engineers and the fact they mostly discussed architectural concerns and stuff like moderation and technical stuff.

    I want to remind instance admins that no matter how nice the engineers are - and how much they share your interests - they are still working for what is essentially a mass information warfare machine. This doesn't make them malicious at all, but it does mean that what they are doing is not a solid perspective on the actual goals and attitude of Meta/Facebook, The Corporate Assimilator Organism.

    Regardless of what they have discussed, they are obligated as employees to act on Meta's orders, not the things they actually want to work on or the things both them and you find important . - or even act towards the goals they want to act towards when Meta inevitably goes for the throat.

    I encourage instance admins to keep this in mind, and further keep in mind that Meta is pretty much royalty when it comes to social stuff and how to appeal to people. If they were trying to appeal to a more corporate social media service, they'd probably have gone with sending in the C-suite, but they know this community is technically inclined and less likely to buy into corpo speak and corpo bullcrap, so they probably hooked you up with all the chill engineers instead :).

    Reiterating my view: Resist Corpo-Assimilation!

    Note on This Post

    I've realised this post would probably be most useful if the primary targets of Threads could see it (Mastodon). But I don't have Mastodon cus I really am not into microblogging myself, so RIP ;p

  • Reddit and twitters recent moves were the driving force behind me switching to mastadon and lemmy, but I ditched meta/Facebook services long ago. Adding those back into this fold really makes the choice for me kind of easy. Inviting meta to the party is just a non starter.

  • Almost once a week for the last 5 years there is a neoliberal that screams about defederating from leftist instances that have absolutely zero power and influence in the world just for disagreeing with them politically. Doesn't matter whether you're on lemmy or mastodon or other services, this happens like clockwork.

    Those exact same people are currently defending against defederating from an evil megacorporation with literal cia employees on staff that does real quantifiable evil shit in the world, and they claim to be moral.

  • Agreed. It's not cowardly or "anti-competitive" to choose to avoid stepping in crap. Because that's what Facebook and Twitter are. Single ownership of an entire social media is a terrible idea, because that platform will always be promoting and protecting the interests of its owners, not its users.

    • Exactly.

      I'm not sure why anyone would look at Facebook at this point and not think they're coming to manipulate and destroy external platforms.

    • Well maybe it is anti-competitve, but anyway competition is what leads to shady tactics like meta are using. The point of the fediverse is cooperation, and absolutely avoid competition

  • Bravo. This goes straight to the main goal of Meta: they want us exposed to their manipulation, their astroturfed content and their psychological traps. They want our attention to their content, and the best defense we can have is negating them from having any of it.

  • A problem I haven't seen anyone discuss: What of server costs?

    When even just 1% of the still growing 30 MILLION Threads users (300k) are interacting with an average Mastodon, Lemmy, etc. instance every day, just how much data do you think that will generate? As Threads scales and users are posting content that users on smaller instances try to interact with, the hosts of these smaller instances bear the brunt of the costs.

    Threads need only exist, and as everything scales upward and more people join the Fediverse, their sheer mass will wipe out all the smaller players just by virtue of the smaller servers being unable to cover growing server costs. 300k users creating 1kb of content each, per day, comes out to 292 megabytes of data. (But that's not realistic. The OP contains 5,171 characters, or roughly 5kb of data.) This does not account for images, or videos, which also cost money to store. If 1% of those 300k users (1% of the 1%, 3,000 people out of 30 million) are posting images, if we assume the maximum file size Mastodon can store (8mb per image) and arbitrarily set the file size at 1mb to try to be conservative, we're still adding an additional 3,000 megabytes of data per day in addition to the original 292, or 3.21 gigabytes of data. We're not even yet accounting for the additional data to store the database references for all of this either, keep in mind.

    Those numbers are small. They don't include videos, and they vastly underestimate the amount of users interacting with any of our smaller instances. Every time a reply containing an image or video is posted to Threads, if smaller instances want to keep a copy for their own users to reply to or interact with, they have to store that data.

    Server owners will be buried under the server costs -- costs which Meta can easily subsidize with Instagram and Facebook revenue, not unlike Walmart intentionally under-pricing everything in a new branch in a small town right up until every local store ceases to exist, at which point they jack up the prices and put another new store somewhere else.

    • Good points. The musings of Lemmy/kbin/other users will be lost in the mass of karen posts, soccer moms, extremist views, god knows what else.

      It's pretty obvious that those who came here from Reddit or wherevee are looking for a place that is not dictated to by commercial interests, and if threads attaches onto these communities, I guess we'll leave for somewhere else.

  • I'm 100% in favor of defederating and completely blocking communications with whatever Meta, Bluesky and other big companies throw.

    More importantly, I was not aware of how Google killed XMPP, and that's the most important thing that every Mastodon and Akkoma admin should read about. Their instances will slowly stop working with Threads, people in their instances might eventually migrate back into Meta owned shit, thus slowly killing their instances.

  • Yeah, absolutely defederate. Nothing good can come from interacting with Meta.

  • By sheer user count allowing them to federate would mean the end of non-Meta content on the All feed. Threads is already much bigger than the entire combined Fediverse so the total engagement would drown any Lemmy content, unless of course driven by Meta comments itself. This would no longer be Lemmy, it would be Threads that you could use your Lemmy account for. Maybe not if the algorithm was changed to filter out posts from Threads from the All feed, but you'd still get your communities flooded with Facebook comments.

    This is in addition to the rest of the problematic issues with Meta as a company.

    • I’m fine with threads federating with mastodon as it means more content which means people won’t immediately dismiss mastodon because it’s too boring for them, but I don’t want Lemmy to federate with Lemmy any more than I want to read tweets on reddit. They’re different types of platforms for different things.

    • This is what I've been thinking lately. There's no way to unring that bell after an influx of several million people "join" Mastodon through Threads.

      Plus threads has an entire team of engineers who can be abused to get out better looking apps, sys admins who ensure the threads servers are running at minimal load - ensuring a top tier Fediverse experience. Already we've seen a burst of indie developers for Lemmy and Mastodon, but what if I'm not concerned that my microblog app needs to know health biometric data - threads is up when my niche instance goes down.

      That's how they get you. Come to threads for a "better user experience"! You can still follow the weird Bean memes, but with a better UI/UX! Don't worry, we at Facebook won't defederate with everyone else once we hit critical mass!

    • Users can still block instances though with Lemmy, yeah? So even if admins of instances don't block Threads, I'd imagine users would be able to. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the capabilities of the software, however.

      • You can block communities at user level but not whole instances yet, it's been requested as a feature I think, though.

  • Facebook is a company you should never interact with. They are plain evil.

    Even if all evidence showed that they have good intentions, I wouldn't trust them - just based on what they have done in the past.

  • It's guaranteed that they'll use their instance to datamine and further build profiles on people in other federated instances as well.

    I don't trust them at all with their handling of data besides their ability to track people who aren't even on their platforms. Also it's almost impossible to reach out to them unless you buy their shitty VR headset, as you will find out if someone ever fraudulently takes your account to buy ads with your money and gets your FB account banned.

    Fuck the Zuck.

  • Facebook sucks, there's nothing but dumb boomers on there now. And the amount of data they harvest from their users is insane. If they think you're a bot, they'll demand to see your government issued ID or your SSN to "verify" you and totally not to get deeper insight into who you are and how to sell shit to you.

  • While I don't support preemptive defederation and was willing to give them a chance, it should be clear by now that Facebook is uninterested in being good actors, and allowing a nearly unmoderated large instance with hate groups and also collects this much info from their users is dangerous regardless of who runs it.

    I support defed due to malicious behavior, although I still think Threads is going to fail regardless of what any of us does.

  • I think I fall on the side of preemptive defederation, not just because of data harvesting etc but also because the incoming communities will be huge and dwarf anything already here - look at what has happened here already as communities try to merge and establish. Everything dominant will become meta along with whatever mods and rules etc they already have in place. Scary.

581 comments