Here's why federating with #Threads is dangerous: fiduciary duty.
A lot of #Fedi#Admins frame federating with Threads as "building community" or "letting the users choose", or "greater connectedness", or "driving Fedi adoption".
#Meta cares about delivering shareholder value. For them, that means two things:
1. Obtaining your personal data to sell, and
2. More eyeballs in front of more ads.
That's it. There's no deeper anything. Meta cares about those two things and those two things ONLY. To put effort into anything else would be a breach of the board members' fiduciary duty to the shareholders.
@andthisismrspeacock Important caveat here is that Facebook still very much is Zuckerbergs baby - he's still got controlling interest in the company, meaning basically that _he's_ the only fiduciary to whom the board actually answers.
I'm not saying that this is better or worse, to be clear, but Facebook isn't solely driven by "impersonal market forces" but by the interests and whims of A Specific Guy.
Over time, enough people move onto BSC's product that BSC can say, well, we tried, but it's really not worth supporting this open standard anymore for so few users. Product EOL. Bye. (That's the Extinguish part.)
Again, I work for BSC and we do this ALL THE TIME. We killed off 3 major products in 2023 and I already know one we're killing in 2024.
EEE is real and if anyone tries to tell you it's not, they're either stupid or lying.
Oh but Jim, you say, what does this have to do with #Threads and #Mastodon?
Well, you can be forgiven for not knowing that, because *nearly all* of the discourse around Threads is about moderation.
Threads doesn't moderate, it allows hate speech, harassment may not be dealt with, etc. And this is true! But thats not why Threads is dangerous to the Fediverse. In that respect Threads is no more dangerous than any other poorly-moderated server.
As many of you know, I work for Big Software Company. Embrace/Extend/Extinguish is something we do. A lot. As in I have watched them kill well over 20 products in 15 years. Probably closer to 50. This strategy is real and software companies absolutely do deploy it, all the time.
There's a bunch of good articles out there on Embrace/Extend/Extinguish, so if you're curious, I encourage you to google it. If you want the tl;dr version, it's in the next post.
EEE is a strategy where a propeietary company Embraces a competing open standard, and partially Extends their own product to work with the open standard.
The idea is the users of the open standard software will start asking Big Software Company to improve their integration. BSC will then say no, and say if they want function X they must move onto BSC's product.
Federating with #Threads is not dangerous because of potential abuse and harassment. That's a real concern, but it's manageable.
Allowing #Meta to federate with your server is an existential threat to the open social universe. This company wants data and eyeballs, and we are a data and eyeball mine they intend to strip.
Take it from a guy who's shut down many more datacenters than he's built; big software companies deploy exactly this strategy to kill competing ideas all the time.
Now, if you've gotten all the way here and still think #Threads integration is good, well, go for it! I can't stop you.
But I'm begging you, #Fedi#Admins: be honest with yourselves. This is not about user choice or community building or any of that. And the concerns are not moderation or harassment. This is about #Meta intending to strip mine the Fediverse for new eyeballs and data. That's it.
@tasket@andthisismrspeacock I would take people's concerns about instances that they are not members of not domain blocking Threads if they were a. not themselves facebook users b. not employees of facebook.
That is not to say you do not get to have an opinion. Everyone does. I think allowing people to choose to block themselves and trusting in the collective is far healthier and probably less counterproductive than seeking to impose your own opinion.
So you want to make sure they can't? Kind of dark no? Who tf are you to decide for them?
Oh yeah you are:
"a guy who's shut down many more datacenters than he's built"
Like you could stop anytime. Was it wrong?
I had someone the other day complaining about Mastodon not blocking facebook from facebook. Is this the next level? People think they can compartmentalise their morality?
@nf3xn@andthisismrspeacock This is a strange way to frame a company like Meta/Facebook. They have a long history and people came here specifically so they could exit the sphere of corporate influence. Trying to sneak it back into our online lives is a threat.
If they have a history, then there is no reason why entities cannot be ethically blocked before they join.
@andthisismrspeacock there is one thing that I don't get, why meta spend money on a the fediverse with thread to gain only ~2million eye balls. Compared to the mastodont Facebook they own or even Twitter it's too few to be worth anything significant for them.
@andthisismrspeacock there is also a real danger Meta, by being able to monitor timelines of larger instances that do not block them, becomes a supergrass (snitch) - feeding back info to feds/government regulators (including authoritarian countries) info of anything they don't like the look of (there are a lot of protestors and activists on here, plus something like 50-70% LGBT+ folk on many instances)
@danstowell@andthisismrspeacock This is usually where I see the most interesting and compelling discussions on a variety of issues backed with links and wonderful deep dives.
It's a lot like what I experienced on forums before Facebook and Twitter vacuumed up a lot of those folks.
I don't think size is the threat here as much as it is a place where a different mode of communicating via social media is being allowed to flourish.
@danstowell@andthisismrspeacock I would suspect it's partly because there are a lot of anti-capitalism voices who are active here.
I wouldn't suggest that we're creating any mass movements but a lot of the folks who don't like what Meta or Twitter are exist in this space and it is large enough that it *could* create momentum on a variety of issues because those issues don't typically disappear via an algorithm like they do in other spaces.
@andthisismrspeacock Understood. But what I don't see here is why would they bother even starting? Fedi is small fry to them, no? Wouldn't it be more cost-effective to build other product features? Or maybe you'd suggest it's to eliminate potential competition?
@tokyo_0@andthisismrspeacock what's the legal risk, if I may ask? Doesn't every fedi instance run the same risk by federating this public post in that case?
I wasn't aware there being consent process when running an instance. The federation is automatic. The Mastodon API is public, it has no authorization at all and the protocol default (without AUTHORIZED_FETCH) is designed so that even suspended instances can still fetch data from the source. Stuff breaks otherwise.
@tokyo_0 You might be right about the AI cases. But none of those have actually been resolved or even been to court yet so we lack precedent (and laws/policy). 2024 might well be the year when commercial entities are banned using public Internet (I doubt it though), but that's still in the future, no one knows the outcome. I doubt Meta counts "setting up a server in fediverse" in that basket of risks anyway.