1y ago

If Lemmy.world doesn't defederate from Threads, Meta and all things Zuck within 24 hours, I will shut down my subs and leave.

I didn't come to a new service just to see it get taken over by the corporate beasts who ruined the internet in general, and I am sure as hell am not going to use an instance that doesn't care about its users.

I think the admin of this instance might have been paid off to federate with Threads, it being one of the most popular.

So, I am giving y'all 24 hours to defederate and if the Lemmy.world admins don't, I'm-a bounce and close down my subs behind me

That is all

97 comments

Feel free to do so and run your own server. Blackmailing is childish and non productive by the way. I'm sure most instances will defederate from threads over time but they are looking to federate with mastadon instances more than lemmy/kbin.
Anyway thanks for participating and best of luck.
- I support op. We must have zero contact or involvement with anything connected to zucc, musk or evil greedy shits. Ban threads forever.
  
  The entire point of the fediverse is that there is no “we”. Or rather, you can decide which “we” you want to engage with. Look at behaw. When world started exploding with growth, the beehaw instance defederated because they wanted to preserve a smaller community.
  I will never sign up for Threads or any other Meta service. However, if the fediverse allows me to interact with my friends and colleagues who have without having to give up all my data to do so, that’s a win in my book.
  So feel free to go start or join an instance that defederates from Threads. Just stop expecting everyone else to do so.
  
  This is what pisses me off.
  They're guaranteed go do something stupid, that's when you ban them.
  They can't help themselves, but you can't do things without reasons. Give them 5 minutes to prove themselves what we know they are.
  
  I support defederating from threads too, I despise FB and anything they touch but blackmailing is not going to do anything in the case of OP and it is the wrong way to go about it . I'm on lemmy.world myself and when the time comes I will have the choice to make depending on what this instance does. We all have that choice, that is the benefit of federation.
  This is why we should defederate https://infosec.pub/post/400702

I applaud your efforts for speaking your mind and letting people know of a perceived threat. I’m not sure you’re really asking for a rational discussion on this topic, so I’ll keep this short.
If your ideals do not align with the host you are on, I suggest you look around and fine one that does and/or start your own server.

I'll say it again...
Threads is a MASTODON-type app. Not Lemmy... Mastodon!
I truly don't understand people in the Lemmy-sphere getting their panties in a bunch over this.
- @RxBrad
  @pinkdrunkenelephants
  They arent smart, they’re reactionaries
- This is true - the bigger impact would be on Kbin instances that are both Threadiverse and Microblogverse facing.
  However, if you go on Mastodon you can see Lemmy threads as posts which you can click through to the hosting instance and also boost (but not downvote). So for Lemmy if Threads.net federates, the biggest impact would be exposure of content to Threads users who then come in to Lemmy instances but not logged in or who could boost content and distort things.
  For Kbin instances and also Mastodon it could mean being swamped with content from Threads.net.
  Personally I do think overall the Kbin/Lemmy/Mastodon servers should probably not federate with Threads.net. The content appears to be poor and it could flood the fediverse with crap, when really it's still small and needs to grow organically. Threads.net is at 70m users already and rising rapidly, while Mastodon is at 8m (1.6m active) and the Threadiverse is more like 130k across Kbin and Lemmy. Mastodon/Kbin/Lemmy need time to establish what it means to be an independent federated social media network. They can always federate with Threads.net in the future - rather than it being Meta's choice, it should be the communities choice if and when they want to federate with a behemoth network.
- I would not be surprised that after Twitter, Meta’s next target is Reddit, which is ripe for a serious commercial rival. Meta are probably working on a Reddit replacement, using activitypub and their experience with Threads. If you federate already with Threads, then it is a relatively small step to extend that to Meta’s Reddit killer. Maybe federation with Threads will automatically be extended by Meta to this new app. Give them an inch….
- I was a bit confused about this as well. Once Threads implements ActivityPub, what would federation with lemmy.world actually look like in practice? I understand how federation works between Lemmy instances, but how would a microblogging platform fit in? Would Threads users just be able to post to Lemmy, or would it somehow show up in a Lemmy community when a Threads user makes a post on Threads?
  I'm not really understanding how two different services like Lemmy and Threads can be intercompatible.
  
  Lemmy communities are "groups" in ActivityPub parlance, and groups do exist on the microblogging platforms. Using Mastodon as an example for now, a Masto user could find the group equivalent to a Lemmy community and make a post and/or comment there and it would show up on lemmy.world and anybody else who federates with that Masto instance. In reality, the groups experience is kind of terrible and a poor interface to these thread-style communities, and you lose all kinds of features like the recency/score sorting algorithm, the ability to downvote things, etc.
  It would take a true masochist to post to lemmy.world from Mastodon, which is why you almost never see it. I've seen one Mastodon user in my time on the threadiverse so far. Most people who are already on the microblogging side of the fediverse have just chosen to register a separate account on a threadiverse instance so they can have an actual usable interface rather than stuffing a link aggregator through a blog-shaped hole.
  Groups don't even exist on Threads currently. Maybe they will by the time they implement ActivityPub, but they may not consider that to be a core goal as a microblogging, Twitter-style platform which has no obvious use for them. This would currently make Threads an even worse interface to the threadiverse (kind of ironic) than Mastodon, which I can't stress enough is already awful. You would just have to search for individual posts by browsing somewhere like lemmy.world directly, copying and pasting the URLs into the Threads app or web site to populate the conversation in their interface in order to reply to the posts and comments there.
  In short, using Lemmy via Threads is probably going to be such a nightmare that only turbo-nerds will try to do it, and turbo-nerds are more likely to realize "This is awful and I should just go join Lemmy or kbin or something," than persist with that hassle long-term. Now, kbin users have more justification to be concerned about how Threads will impact their communities, because kbin supports microblogging directly--in corporate terms, it's like if Reddit and Twitter combined into one site that you could tab between on the fly. This means kbin users will be more likely to see Threads content and vice versa.
  
  Check out kbin, it supports both
- And it will still connect to Lemmy, since we all use the ActivityPub protocol?
  What is your point, exactly?
  
  Honestly, maybe the incompatible protocols should just be severed from each other.
  It's novel that Mastodon can technically talk to Lemmy. But why? It's such a hassle to make it happen -- and the results are so messy.
  If you want Mastodon to happen on Lemmy, it just ends up being easier to post a URL to a Mastodon post than it is to try and use the "official" federated methods. Just like people could post a link to a tweet or Facebook post.
- @RxBrad
  @corroded
  As you can see here I can also comment from Mostodon, the most mastodon-like app ;-) . Likewise, threads can participate in threadiverse once they federate. That's how federation works.
  @pinkdrunkenelephants
  
  But it's literally the one time you've done so. Because it's probably a royal pain to make it happen.
  I can technically eat soup with a fork. It won't be easy... or pretty. Much like I can force Mastodon to happen here on Lemmy.
  I'd much rather use a spoon/app that was intended for the purpose I'm using it for.

Well I’m sure many others will also say
“peace”
I don’t think a single one of us came here to see it wrecked or taken over.
That being said, I do not like facebook and likely won’t stay on servers that federate with them. Especially if the instances start abiding by facebooks terms. That’s where I’m drawing the line.
That is the beauty of the Fediverse. You choose your landing and build your aggregation based off that.
A large issue I see is people coming here and expecting privacy to be default. By nature the Fediverse is actually more public than a centralized service would be. There is almost unrestricted access to what you post from anywhere within the Fediverse.
People need to keep this in mind when posting.
- Meta coming in and using ActivityPub means there will be rapid changes. It will be up to the open community to decide to go along for the ride or pick which parts of ActivityPub changes make sense to go along with. There is both good and bad in this. The good is Meta is a mature software company who regularly provides upstream changes (i.e. they contribute to the software community). I postulate that the changes they will make including things like design changes for better privacy, security, stability of ActivityPub protocol (if there is any) will be of tremendous benefit to the open community. They may also make design changes that benefit only Meta, and the fear there being the changes are detrimental to the open community. I don’t see that really happening for a few reasons. 1. Someone maintains the ActivityPub spec and retains oversight of changes (anyone know who that is?), 2. Any changes that detriment the open community can be dis-included from the open projects (Mastodon, lemmy, et al.), and community forks would be created. That is overall beneficial as long as it doesn’t fragment a finite resource (developers). 3. More users brought to the Fediverse mean more potential people to get involved in the open communities, e.g. if Meta starts pissing off their user base maybe it’s easier for them to jump ship to Mastodon.
- Yeah, that's my line. I'm happy with federating with Threads, but not being Threads's removed.

Nobody is federated with threads because threads doesn't even support federation yet and there's no actual ETA for when it'll launch.

Wait why the hell is lemmy.world federated with Meta anyways? That seems... stupid?
- Nobody is federated with Meta because Threads doesn't even support ActivityPub yet. People are getting on their soapboxes and high horses when literally nothing has even happened that would merit this level of histrionics.
  Some people need to seriously chill the fuck out.
  
  I think people are justified in having strong emotions on this topic. A good amount of us just came from Reddit, only to waltz right into what feels like another corporate power play. You install smoke detectors before you have a house fire, not during it.
  Many of us have been burned by Meta and purposefully choose these more obscure communities, like Lemmy, to stay far away from them. Meta, after all, has waged a worldwide assault on democracy. Meta has aided literal genocide in at least one country. Meta has run undisclosed psychological experiments to see if it could alter the mood of its users and make them depressed, without regard for if children were among the swath of people.
  A lot of people are old enough to remember similar takeovers of standards and open protocols, which is why XMPP comes up so often in these discussions. All it takes is one big player with God-levels of money in order to usurp a standard. Google’s done it twice now, for instance. First with XMPP and again with RCS.
  Meta deserves zero benefit of doubt. They’ve always been a bad actor and parasite. I don’t buy the conspiracy theory that admins are being paid by Meta. That does seem hysterical.
  The most likely reason I’ve heard for Threads embracing ActivityPub (eventually) is to circumvent EU regulations. In which case we shouldn’t be fine with being a pawn and should resist aiding an objectively harmful company from avoiding due regulation.
- as far as I understood the admins decided to wait and see what's going on before making a decision. they do not federate, they do not de-federate upfront.
  
  That seems pretty rational
- Nothing is federated with Threads yet, as Threads hasn't rolled out federation yet.
  Moreover, while ActivityPub would grant Threads users the ability to interact with content from groups, the UI does not surface groups, and does not enable clean interactions.
  Groups are incredibly spammy on microblogging UIs, and not really a fun experience, so the actual crossover between Threads and ActivityPub groups like Lemmy communities is going to be really small in practice.
- They aren't. It's just people want to be outraged
- The admins were probably paid off. There are people actively defending being federated with Zuck bullshit and they're likely dumb shills or bots too.
  I left Reddit specifically to get away from this shit, yet here we are. 🤦
  
  Admins paid off? That's absurd. Lemmy.world are taking a moderate wait-and-see approach. I disagree with that stance, but to insinuate they are corrupt because they aren't as reactionary as you are is ridiculous.
  
  The admins were probably paid off
  "Threads" got millions sing-ins in few hours after the launch, you a bit overestimate value of lemmy.world user base for meta.
  But, yes, if you do not agree with lemmy.world - you can select another instance of setup you own.
  
  I think you are the bot here because this can't be true 🤦
  
  A question for you. Is any Lemmy instance federated with Threads?
  
  There is no federation with Threads because it isn’t federated yet.
  
  What would facebook have to gain from paying LEMMY ADMINS this far in advance? If it was mastodon admins that would be one thing, but lemmy isnt even the target for threats, and the instances are so small yet it is practically useless for facebook to pursue something that could backfire so hard by people leaking the messages if they offered to bribe admins...
  
  The admins were probably paid off

Decentralize anyway. Make an instance with blackjack and hookers and run it exactly how you want.

This feels like a shitpost made just to get some upset reactions for content.
... I will shut down my subs
They have 1 tiny sub. They seem rational enough to know they don't have any sway even if they didn't understand how the fediverse works and thought removing subs was a valid threat.
This is probably just farming reactions for fun

Wow yet another purity test person. Now you are trying to hold an instance hostage. Please move on to somewhere else. We don’t need you.

In the immortal words of 19th century philosopher Curly Bill, "Well, bye."

Someone is full of themselves today 🤣 go make your own instance and run it how you want. Until then, Threads isn’t even federated yet.

I agree with your stance on Fuckerburg's shitstain of a platform, but please don't make unnecessary infighting within one of the last remaining utopias on the internet please

"Maybe the worst bluff I've ever seen." - Michael Bluth

I'm probably one of the loudest anti-Zuck voices on this server, but even I think you should probably just leave.
I like that sub too. But another Instance would be a better fit for you.

Maybe learn the basics of the Fediverse before demanding to undo something that doesn't even exist yet.

I've said this on another thread too: can we leave this type of instant escalation of problems behind us? Are you even actually trying to solve a problem or are you just being angry and projecting your anger out onto the site to see who else is angry?
You're out here talking about backroom bribes and threatening to leave if your demand isn't met - it's just a website! It's a cool website, and one I hope succeeds, but still just a website. We do not need to be so angry over it and make accusations with zero evidence to try and drive the outrage machine.
I used to be this angry about internet goings-on and it was unhealthy, I can see by looking back on it now. Let's deescalate a little and maybe talk it out?

Ok, have fun.

bye. frankly this post is toxic. if you want to leave then leave but trying to strong arm instance admins over it is low.

Fuckity bye. There's a lot of other instances that don't federate with Threads.

I thought the idea of Threads using ActivityPub was great and the exact sort of change that Fediverse fans would want? Most people aren't going to use Lemmy, Mastodon, PixelFed, etc but will likely be on board with Threads. Being able to interact with more people without having to use sketchy services sounds like a win to me.
- You... Don't think Meta is a sketchy service provider?
  
  I think the point was that we don't need to use the sketchy service.
  
  No I do think they're sketchy, hence why I appreciate being able to interact with Threads without personally using it.
- Nope Nope Nope.
  I don't agree with OP creating infighting within the fediverse, but I really do agree with his points on defederating.
  Have you heard of the term "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish"? It was Microsoft's motto in the 90s to early 2000s of destroying free and open source competition.
  The first step: "Embrace" meant to embrace the competition's protocol. Things like the Open Document Format, or in this case ActivityPub. They would make a product that used that protocol, pretending like they were contributing to it.
  The second step: "Extend" meant to extend the protocol. They would divert from the way the original protocol worked, and adding more features that would attract the users on the original platform to their one. They would do this in a way that the original platform wouldn't be able to catch up and get feature parity with them, such as making their new protocol closed source.
  The final step: "Extinguish" would be that when enough users migrated away from the competition's original platform, they would basically have stolen all the users, profited off the volunteers that made the original product, and made a worse, closed source, non-free alternative.
  I know it's pretty fucked up, but this is an actual thing that happened, and it's not just Microsoft. Google's done it with XMPP, and Facebook is probably doing it with Threads this time around.
  Here's some more stuff to read about it if you are interested:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
  
  Your typical Threads user isn't going to use Mastodon or Lemmy though and we won't be using Threads so I can't see either being extinguished.

How does one defederate from that which is not yet federated?
- By adding threads.net to the defederation list.

I don't even know who you are.

Here is the tutorial, please make YOUR OWN server if you dislike admin choice. Thx!

I think you're probably best shutting "your" subs and moving anyway - if you want to dictate how a server runs, you're probably better off hosting your own instance. I'm not sure we need people in the fediverse who thinks a moderator owns a community - it's just the other extreme from Reddit's attitude that they own a community.
I happen to agree with defederating, but I don't like threats and the idea of blackmail to a community.

OK.
How to do suggest they defederate from an entity which isn't federating with anyone?
- To be fair, they can "prempt" Threads.net by blocking the domains. That's basically how they block other instances.
  I personally think the default should be to block Threads.net and federate if and when a server wants to, rather than waiting for Meta to pull a switch. However I disagree with OP's approach of blackmail and threats, and his idea he "owns" the communities he moderates.

Two thoughts:
So there's a bit of talk about Threads being a mastodon/microblogging type platform and so it doesn't matter. This is somewhat wrong. Lemmy federates in a certain way with microblogging platforms such that two-way communication can and does occur between such platforms. However likely it is, when Threads turns on their federation they will be able to subscribe/follow and post to lemmy communities.
Picking a server/instance on the basis of its moderations issues is basically the first idea or utility behind decentralisation. So ... umm ... continue on your merry way ... this is the point. I know lemmy.ml has definitely defederated already.

As much as I hate meta and hate the idea of threads federating with us, ultimately you should be able to find or create an instance that aligns with your idea of defeding with them. I would ultimately want the admin of my instance to side with the majority of users rather than drag users kicking and screaming into following their lead.
Besides, if you truly wanted more control over your web experience, we should be more decentralized. Like what the hell are we all doing on the same instance, and being shocked that the decisions of a small group of people is going to affect so many of us. Like we were all encouraged to join smaller instances or make our own precisely for this reason. Like hypothetically, if every popular community was in its own instance, rather than centralized around world, ml, beehaw and kbin, Meta federating with us would not be a big deal. Every community would be able to decide whether they wanted to associate with them or not, and we would be too spread out for it to be worth Meta's while.
Maybe this should be a wake up call for some of ya'll. Spread out and take your own actions, rather than wait for the big instances' admins to act for you.

Good luck! And don't wait for so long, delete right now.

97 comments