this argument makes sense only if you're talking about defederating instances. It doesn't make sense here. The problem is not whether we want the users of meta's instances. The problem is whether we want a huge corp be part of the fediverse. And why are we talking about it? Because people are trying not being naive and believing that meta is here because they liked the ideas of a federated network and want to participate. Meta will cause more harm than good as it has already happened in the past in different technologies/projects.

meta is not here to promote open networks. They will do more harm than good. If you want to learn more about how google achieved it with the XMPP you can read the story here https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html written by one of the core developers.

Am I just misunderstanding this?

yes

the defederation has nothing to do with "reducing meta's number". The reason to defederate is so you're not playing their game with their own rules. Fediverse will gain absolutely nothing by playing meta's game.

meta (threads) will not support fediverse already. They said they will do in some later version. So for the completely practical part, you don't need to do anything right now.

using your credit/debit card to verify your account is something that I also wouldn't like to do. Same as using my ID

i don't agree. I think it is important to maintain a blacklist instead of a whitelist where people would then submit what they need to add which will then will need to be approved etc. It will decrease the federated experience.

i'm not here for the ton of content that meta will produce. If I wanted this content I would had been there in the first place. It looks like somebody else is in the wrong place and is dreaming of a fediverse full of brands trying to promote their products and the influencers pretending they are real life advertisements.

its funny that you measure value by that metric.

if you live in europe, the Mediterranean sea is you know, right next to you. And way much closer than the distance of the titanic to the shore in America, which is about 1000 nautical miles.

you missed the point where the open source devs were in a constant race to adapt to all the google-"innovations" and actually troubleshoot on them which ends up demotivating

but you're still "visiting" it. It is just your reader that makes the https request instead of your browser. In their logs and stats you are still visible. The only difference is that you will have a user-agent that shows that it is an RSS reader instead of a browser. Like:
"GET /atom.xml" 304 0 "Feedly/1.0 (+http://www.feedly.com/fetcher.html; 16 subscribers; like FeedFetcher-Google)"
And while you've the RSS reader open it while make requests periodically so we're talking for multiple visits as well.

what you (and other likeminded people) haven't understood is that these 2 are 2 different topics. Defederating with meta is not because people don't want to be near the users of meta. It is because meta is a huge corp and it is not here to promote the idea of a federated network. It is here to make profit and to exploit the network. Allowing them to be part of the same network will just cause harm to the network itself in the end.

I suggest you reading this article https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html which is the story of how google killed XMPP, written by one of the XMPP core developers. I believe you will see the similarities.

@asjmcguire

that's not true. There are open source 3rd-parties like Infinity that are non-commercial.

yes, they're following the same approach. I'm really curious, didn't they see all the backslash that elon mask's actions had? Or did they see it but they believe that since twitter is still online, it means that they were correct actions?

i'm sorry but you're naive.

If I want to post something and I want people to see it and react to it, I will post it to the side with more people.

do you know how FB or instagram work? Do you think that when you post, your post reaches your whole audience? I believe you know how they work but for some reason you chose to ignore now.

My argument is that the fedipact, if executed as desired by the people running it, will defederate from Meta and anywhere that federates with Meta.
So now you have 2 fediverses, completely separated from one another.

So, you've read the history of XMPP. Did you understand what google practically did? Simply put, meta will create new features on top of activity pub. Open source activity pub developers will be in a constant race to adapt their own projects in a way that will be compatible with meta's project. They will have no voice but to follow whatever meta decides. Users will start getting fed up that their open source instance is not behaving as well as their friend's meta instance. People will jump project and/or when users are polarised, meta will decide that they had enough with activity pub. It doesn't cover their needs and they move to another completely closed project. Users again are forces to choose side and the open source community is just left with the project which they adapted in favour of meta, but now meta is gone because they were never in the same boat actually.

Staying away from meta is a decision in the basis of protecting the whole project. It is not because people don't want to be close to the users of meta. It is because meta is not here to promote the federated networks. It is here to make profit of it and they may even destroy it if they believe that this is the way to make profit. Siding with them is naive and will never bring value in the network itself.

I’m a software engineer

if you're a software engineer you should had known to make constructive comments and also most importantly realise that you are on a Non-commercial open source one-man-project. Your attitude is disgusting and you sound like the guys that nobody wants to work with. Nobody forces you to be here and you're welcome to go and please take your cancer with you on your way out.

If large companies and influential people move to Mastodon [...] and no ads.

large companies and influential people are in the commercial platforms because of the ads. There is literally no reason for them to move in a place without ads.

in this case we don't talk about users who want to block users of another instance. The problem is not the users of meta. The problem is meta itself and all the problems it will bring to the federated network. Whoever cannot see that their intentions are not to promote federated networks but to exploit and extinguish them, is just naive.

I don't get it. Nobody dictated anyone. People want absolutely none relation with meta and they want to be on a different network than meta. By federating with instances that federate with meta, everyone ends up in the same federated network while some pretend that they don't see each other. Meta is not here for the same values they are. Meta is not here for the values of the fediverse. Ostracizing meta is the only healthy solution if we agree that they have ulterior motives.

By doing so - that part of the fediverse is behaving in exactly the same way that they fear that meta will behave eventually.

by not doing so, is like accepting meta as friend while at the same time you're waiting for the moment they'll stab you. Fediverse and activity pub have absolutely nothing to gain by allowing this.

@asjmcguire

@asjmcguire

I struggle to continue conversations when the argument is "if you're doing X to Y you are also Y". No, if you want to ostracise the biggest greediest corporation that we all know are here for different reasons than the reasons that the fediverse was created, no, you're not a dictator. You are just trying to protect your own values.

Same as when you don't allow hate speech, you're not a fascist who oPposEs tO fReE SpEeCh

Using words with very clear, historically set meaning, to describe the exact opposite thing is a very weird path to take.