Robert W. Gehl
Here's a totally wonky, ultranerdy piece of evidence for folks who want to argue that #Meta doesn't operate in good faith. It's based on a chapter of my book about the Dark Web (https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262038263/weaving-the-dark-web/).
A thread... 🧵
Tim Chambers
@rwg Here was my take on what DOES help defend against #EEE - and why preemptive defederation is of no use. Curious what you'd think of my case here of what works, and what doesn't. https://www.timothychambers.net/2023/06/23/project-and-the.html
Robert W. Gehl
While not exactly the same as the current concerns about "embrace, extend, extinguish" in relation to #ActivityPub, Facebook/#Meta has already effectively broken up collaborations between small #FOSS projects in order to further their goals at standards bodies.
Could this happen again? Sure!
🧵 /end
Robert W. Gehl
While Tor, I2P, GNU, and Namecoin were working an RFC through the IETF process, Facebook and Tor/Appelbaum broke away from the group.
Why? Because they were bigger than the rest. Facebook was too important to wait for the piddly-little anonymizing projects, like I2P.
Tor was just too popular. That was the basic argument.
They broke off their own RFC, got it approved very quickly, and facebookcorewwwi.onion went live in 2016, complete with an HTTPS certificate.
🧵 /5
Robert W. Gehl
Facebook was looking into setting up their own Tor hidden service, what would eventually become facebookcorewwwi.onion (the fact that I can recall that URL is a BIG DEAL, ask me why later).
So they partnered with Tor, specifically the now infamous Jacob Appelbaum (a serial sexual abuser -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Appelbaum#Allegations_of_sexual_misconduct)
Facebook's goal was to get IETF standardization so they could get a domain certificate for their .onion service. (Ask me why later, more nerdery).
🧵 /4
Robert W. Gehl
The various groups were working together, even though there were some socio-technical rivalries among them. For example, people representing Tor said I2P's documentation sucked. I2P thought Tor's domain name system was poorly conceived. That sort of thing.
But they all had common cause: prevent this obscure privacy problem.
Then #Meta (at that time, #Facebook) showed up.
🧵 /3
Robert W. Gehl
So, back in 2015, there were multiple groups creating encrypted, anonymizing networks (many of which are still in operation today): #I2P, #Tor, #GNU, #Namecoin.
They went to the #IETF to standardize how browsers would handle their special top-level domains.
(I warned you this was nerdy).
The idea here was that if a user typed domain.i2p or domain.onion into a browser, the browser would leak that request to search engines or DNS servers.
2/🧵
Tim Chambers
@rwg it was addressing both - and critiquing the idea that preemptive defederation would assist in defending the ActivityPub standard from EEE abuse, versus things like I mentioned in the piece, chiefly a robust test suite for compliance testing and developer community building…
Robert W. Gehl
@tchambers I guess the first thing I'll say is that your post is about two distinct things:
1) whether or not to preemptively block #Threads
2) preventing #EEE
Before I say more, is that fair?
Or do you see the two as the same?
Tim Chambers
@rwg Can link you to very active work on the Test Suite work. Moving very quickly.. One place to start is this group: @activitypubtestsuite
Robert W. Gehl
@tchambers Ok! You and I disagree on the first bit, clearly. I can see giving many entities the benefit of the doubt vis a vis federation, but not #Meta. Block 'em now I say!
As for the second, the test suite, that's a great idea. It's the idea the SocialWG had when they made #ActivityPub and other the other standards. Making sure applications are standards-compliant via testing is very important.
Tim Chambers
@rwg @activitypubtestsuite Thanks! Clearly in terms of EEE defense that is separate from defed question, which was part of my point. Unlike some claims Defederation doesn’t assist in defending against EEE - my argument goes - as they already are massively 10x the size of the fedi and free to adopt AP even if we all blocked. But I hope AP test suite and dev community building can defend. And maybe a point of cooperation for both sides of the Meta block question.
Robert W. Gehl
@tchambers @activitypubtestsuite Yeah, I've been watching it, actually...
I guess where I'd critique your post is the articulation of preemptive blocking and test suites -- those are two separate issues. For example, I recommend blocking Threads AND I support a strong test suite. The idea that pro-blocking people naively think that blocking is going to prevent EEE is the shortcoming of your post, I'd say.
Tim Chambers
@smallcircles @rwg I think a decentralized open social web will be more resilient culturally than you fear - look at how many VERY different cultures coexist now on the Fedi! I think that it might actually gets richer not worse as the Fediverse grows as new platforms join. And the tools for community curation seem good and getting better….
small circle 🕊 in calmness
Don't wanna sound too pessimistic, but I feel for current fedi not to become basically indistinguishable from the corporate web elsewhere.. too late, it's gonna happen.
Could we've avoided that in the years before mainstreaming started? That's an interesting question. Maybe not, given how hard it is to organize / collaborate in grassroots movements where fragmentation is the norm, and evolution slow, organic.
From Meta I expect an EE, the 3rd E just involves our culture dying.
Tim Chambers
@smallcircles @rwg - I put some hope in the idea that the Fediverse has some built-in structures to enable different cultures to thrive without being bulldozed here that the centralized examples (Insta, TikTok, X) you list just didn't have.
small circle 🕊 in calmness
I was a bit lazy and out of my 500 chars :)
The fedi vibe + values (culture is an overload term) will continue to exist somewhere, just like early-web, usenet, BBS vibes also still exist. But always pushed to the fringes as capitalist-induced blandness creeps in.
How many cultures still exist on X, besides toxic/fascist tribes? How many cultures exist on LinkedIn besides recruiter and platitude posters? How many on Insta, TikTok, etc.
They are there, yet things are different.
Tim Chambers
@rwg And soon I can send you more on the Test Suite. Exciting stuff and sounds like an area you see promise in. More soon, stay tuned.
Michael Downey 🧢
Does your employer Dewey/WPP (and/or its clients) have any financial stake in or relationship with Meta or its affiliates?
"The Dewey Square Group has faced allegations over the years of conducting “astroturfed” campaigns, or the tactic of making a PR firm-directed campaign appear to be a grassroots movement."
https://www.influencewatch.org/for-profit/dewey-square-group/
Tim Chambers
For any server, I do not defederate them prior to them breaking any moderation covenant.
And for any other server on the Fedi, if the moderators are even TRYING, I give them grace room and moderate out problem accounts and make blocking appropriate to the level of the issue I see. Fediblocking is a nuclear option that is needed for virtually umoderated sites, but for others other moderation keeps our users safe and honors our pledge to the Mastodon Covenant.
tsk
@tchambers @rwg A huge problem with not "pre-emptively" defederating is that the federating sites then set a double standard for compliance with the covenant. And that will be resented and fought.
And what we will have in effect is the fediverse flipping its covenant in order to partake in Meta's pattern of attacking marginalized groups. You will be complicit.
Tim Chambers
@rwg @tasket - only three accounts are federated. So they aren't here yet, hence a fediblock being premptive strike. And for the existing non-Fedi Theads:
Sure accounts like LibsofTiktok, Prageru, exist there -and they try to stay "barely" within the Threads TOS after being moderated by them time and again, true. I'd moderate those.
But on any other server, I'd block proportionate to the problem. If I disagree with a set of accounts but not the whole I block those accounts.
No diff.
Robert W. Gehl
But this isn't a new server. It already hosts some really awful accounts. This isn't a new instance that just started and is finding its feet....
Tim Chambers
Are you feferring to "Running in limited-federation mode"? If so being "opt-in" to Federate isn't that - "Limited Fedderation mode is when there IS no opt in to Federate at all, but ONLY in local mode.
Michael Downey 🧢
It's also not fully federated (not only now, but also publicly stated as a long-term policy), which is clearly stated at https://joinmastodon.org/covenant as a Covenant-incompatible policy.
Michael Downey 🧢
@tchambers As usual your mental gymnastics continue... 🤦♂️
Tim Chambers
Per the covenant: “While we respect the use cases of running Mastodon *without federation* in academic and private contexts, users arriving through our page should be able to participate in the Mastodon network without excessive limitations.”
Opt in Federation isn’t “without federation.” And threads users opting in isn’t “excessive limitations” to you is it?
tom jennings
This is fkn excellent and adds much clarity for me re: preemptive defed. Thanks.
Tim Chambers
Thank you!
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.