1y ago

Meta can rage farm Mastodon without controlling it

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/1185025

Meta can introduce their signature rage farming to the Fediverse. They don't need to control Mastodon. All they have to do is introduce it in their app. Show every Threads user algorithmically filtered content from the Fediverse precisely tailored for maximum rage. When the rage inducing content came from Mastodon, the enraged Thread users will flood that Mastodon threads with the familiar rage-filled Facebook comment section vomit. This in turn will enrage Mastodon users, driving them to engage, at least in the short to mid term. All the while Meta sells ads in-between posts. And that's how they rage farm the Fediverse without EEE-ing the technology. Meta can effectively EEE the userbase. The last E is something Meta may not intend but would likely happen. It consists of a subset of the Fediverse users leaving the network or segregating themselves in a small vomit-free bubble.

22 comments

Would an instance be able to unfederate Facebook/ meta.
- Yes. Many are doing so preemptively.
  
  You can't do that preemptively when you don't know what their instance names are going to be.
- Why wouldn't they be able to?
  
  I am just starting to get used to this federated stuff, adding to my concepts as I go.
- Yes, and many are doing it

Meta can do whatever they want with Threads, in the exact same way that mastodon.social is it's own independent instance and can do as it pleases.
If Mastodon users want to follow or even see content on Threads, it's entirely optional, depending on your current instance's stance. You can always move to another instance that shares your views (and there will be plenty that do) and has defederated from Threads, or you could roll your own instance and be in control of what instances you interact/federate with for yourself.
- Exactly, I would just join an instance that defederates from threads.

"Ragefarming" and "algorithmically filtering for rage" just means sorting by thread activity. Mastodon already does this.
- It is possible to have an active discussion in a civil tone. What they promote is conflict, that is not the same as activity.
  
  Mastodon is a bubble. You have primarily highly educated, tech-literate nerds on that platform.
  Obviously people are more civil and polite there, than some raging uneducated losers and trolls on facebook.
  As the fediverse grows, the userbase will obviously lose this current isolated tech-wizard school vibe, and feel more like going into a random pub in a big city. Regardless if Meta joins the fediverse or not.
- Does it? Facebook can determine things like political leanings of people, as well as the likelyhood of particular content to trigger rage response. The result looks different for different people. Everyone's feed is different and tailored for inducing response from them.
  
  When I used Facebook a few years ago, my feed was mostly memes, ads and personal posts from friends and family.
  Maybe I never got the ragebait political stuff, because everyone in my friend circle wasn't keen on being the sad guy that publicly yells at clouds on facebook.
  Popular hashtags on Twitter and to some extend even on Mastodon, just makes you feel bad for the mental health of these perma-raging users tho.
  Political spaces in general on every social platform are just magnets for misery.

What’s EEE?
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
  
  Thanks!

Would any instance that found a user to be problematic be able to ban that user?
- fb will be doing things at such a massive scale that this would be too much work
  
  Here I am assuming they would show up as users when FB's version shows up as an instance and can be delt with on that level. I am just starting to get used to this federated stuff.

22 comments