It should come as no surprise that the lemmy.ml [http://lemmy.ml] admin team
took about 2 minutes to decide to pre-emptively block threats / Meta. Their
transparent and opportunistic scheme to commodify the fediverse and it’s users
will not be allowed to proceed. We strongly encourage other instance
administrators to do the same, given the grave threat they pose to the
fediverse.
Don’t see why people are doing this. You’ll just damage the fediverse and discourage meta from federating, granting them their own walled garden that you cannot use without selling your soul to them, which is going to dissuade people from using Mastodon as what’s the point if people on threads cannot see what they have
Would you mind explaining how they’re going to do this with fediverse? Like explain using your own words and not just linking that same article everyone is spreading around. It seems like no one is cabable of giving ELI5 or even ELI15 answer to this.
You’re a woodworker. You’ve developed skills that only few have. Carpentry Inc. approaches you regarding a partnership: you share your skills, they offer you their platform. Win-win, right? Now Carpentry Inc. decides to adapt the knowledge you provided, cutting you out of everything. You’re powerless against a multi-billion corporation. All your years of work are gone. You’re nothing more than an afterthought.
Damn, I think everyone missed that detail! We’re talking about two completely different companies here – my mind is blown!
Just look at the Hemming distance between “Google” and “Meta”!
I’m convinced! Meta will never follow Google’s footsteps.
Now how about you take a nice, cold shower and re-think your comment.
you actually think corporations will always keep their word, don’t you
and that somehow Google acting like it does is like some fluke or one bad apple or something, rather than Google acting in ways very normal and common to corporations
Facebook is known for analyzing your contact list and trying to get as much data as they can on those people as well. You don’t have to make life easier for face-eating leopards.
You’re confusing something. Defederation by lemmy.ml means that lemmy.ml users cannot see any threads.net content if they wanted or not. Threads.net can still connect to lemmy.ml. That’s exactly the situation lemmy.world and beehaw.org are in: beehaw.org blocked lemmy.world and lemmy.world users can see and interact with everything from beehaw.org, just beehaw users don’t see any of those interactions. Have a look at https://lemmy.world/c/gaming@beehaw.org as proof.
So many folks on here are jumping on and claiming that decentralization is a one way or that people don’t know anything, but have failed to read the specifications themselves.
ActivityPub defines the Block activity for client-to-server (C2S) use-cases, but not for server-to-server (S2S) – it recommends that servers SHOULD NOT deliver Block activities to their object.
So as I mentioned before, Lemmy.world should be blocking those servers at the instance level, preventing it from sharing any data to any identified Facebook instances.
Sure this doesn’t stop Facebook from spinning up other instances, but that will improve a lot more effort on their side and will quickly be identified and blocked by the communities, just like all their urls for ads, api, etc. have been for years.
It would not be that simple, considering they’d be running multiple instances and require more effort to aggregate, deduplicate, and stage that data - vs just having a single clean database for it
but have failed to read the specifications themselves.
What the specs say doesn’t matter if reality behaves a different way. Fact is that Beehaw blocked Lemmy.world but not the other way around and therefore Lemmy.world users can read everything from Beehaw. Lemmy.world blocking Threads would thereby be at best just a symbolic gesture and at worst actively driving people away towards Threads because that’s where they can access all the content. If an e-mail provider blocked all mails from @gmail.com, most of its users would jump ship towards a provider that doesn’t do that and perhaps even drive them towards GMail.
It does actually matter, because that is what is happening.
Head over to the gaming@beehaw.org link that you shared as an example and notice that the posts are 3+ days old and all the recent posts are from instances other than beehaw; this clearly shows that Lemmy.world has not been receiving any data from beehaw for some time already.
As for hurting Lemmy and driving people to threads, is a baseless argument; anyone wanting an experience that Threads offers is not coming to Lemmy; they would either already be there or would be coming from Twitter/Mastadon.
Lemmy at its core is very far from what Threads/Twitter/Mastadon try to be.
3+ days old and all the recent posts are from instances other than beehaw; this clearly shows that Lemmy.world has not been receiving any data from beehaw for some time already.
The block is older than three days.
anyone wanting an experience that Threads offers is not coming to Lemmy
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using an URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !gaming@lemmy.world
You don’t speak for everyone, especially when you clearly don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
The comments and ratios in this thread are a perfect example of why lemmy.world should not defederate from facebook until given a clear reason. You all are operating on emotion, not logical or rational thought.
I’m defending users being able to make these decisions for themselves. If you want to be on an instance that ‘pre-emptively’ blocks corporations, lemmy.ml might be better for you than lemmy.world.
This thread is full of children who think that because they don’t like something then neither should anyone else.
Oh boy, more ‘data collection’ nonsense. Hey brother. Have you, personally, ever written a bot? If you did, you’d know how trivial it is for anyone to collect anything posted on lemmy.
This thread is full of children who think that because they don’t like something then neither should anyone else.
This is exactly you. You don’t like the idea of blocking Facebook and are being combative and douchey to anyone who disagrees. Your dislikes are in the toilet and you are as free to leave .world as anyone else.
Things might go bad with federation with Meta and Meta is indeed loathsome and has an awful history and present of being a bad actor — but responding to “You all are operating on emotion” with the bad faith emotional ad hominem response “Why are you so hard for Zucc?” is kind of proving the point.
I think there’s lots of good arguments around being wary of Meta and defederating (and some good ones in favour of wait and see) but the level of discourse around this issue on here is really not great and too much attacking others (and it’s not just you — the post you’re responding to as well was rude too with “you clearly don’t have a clue what you’re talking about”). The absolutist way people are talking and treating people who have other perspectives has made me feel much less positive about the potential for good discourse and community on this platform.
You’re being bit of a jerk in this thread but you’re still right. People are spamming one article and using the same buzzwords from that article to sound smart but the content of their messages demonstrates that almost no one understands how any of this works. People over-estimate the amount of data Facebook can collect from outside instances and they’re confused about what defederating actually does.
I don’t want anything to do with facebook either but I’m interested in actual solutions for this and not just something that feels good but doesn’t do anything.
You’re posting on public forum. If you don’t want Facebook to see it then stop posting. Defederating isn’t going to change that. It just stops the content flow from their instance into yours. Not the other way around. For them to get data other than your content and upvotes you need to install Threads app because that’s only available to the admins of your instance and Facebook can’t get it wether you federate with them or not.
People are demanding for defederation but almost everyone is confused about what it does.
The thing is, if you wanted to interact with someone on Threads and it wasn’t federated, you’d have to install the app and hand over your data to Meta to interact with them. If it was federated, you could set up your own Mastodon instance and keep all of the data that you don’t want to share.
Yeah but it will still give them less of an incentive to join the fediverse in the first place. This kneejerk reaction of blocking them is madness. Instead we should be getting big figures to join the fediverse so that if meta ever chooses to leave the fediverse, they’d be removing their userbase from the content.
Yeah I agree that there’s possible downsides to it aswell. Ideally every user could individually block instances as they wish instead of it being forced upon us. I’d imagine this feature is eventually coming. Some apps allow it I believe
I get that. But instead on Lemmy were freely giving away our data to literally anyone that ask for it. That’s the downside of the federated platforms. I guess with the fediverse you’re at least not tying things to your actual identity. Not sure if threads allows for anonymous accounts like Twitter.
Embrace: You’re selling lemonade at your stand. One day, another kid in the street (“Kid B”) starts his own lemonade stand as well. Noticing his operation, you decide to become friends with him and share your lemonade recipes with him, so you both can make tasty lemonade together.
Extend: As you continue to share more insights and tips about your business, Kid B starts implementing your strategies. His lemonade stand begins to seem a lot like yours. You suggest adding exciting new features to the lemonade stands, like special umbrellas, or a particular secret ingredient that only you know. Since Kid B doesn’t know any better, he relies on your inputs and makes these changes.
Extinguish: Now, both lemonade stands are almost identical. You’ve influenced Kid B’s business heavily, and it’s become deeply dependent on your ideas. At this stage, you make a move that Kid B can’t match. Maybe you start selling a unique lemonade flavor that only you can make, or setup a cool sign that Kid B can’t afford. Suddenly, customers start to ignore Kid B’s stand and flock to yours, because yours has something extra or special. Eventually, Kid B’s stand can’t compete, and he has to close up his lemonade stand.
This is a simplified example of how “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” can work.
(Verse 1)
Is this just a concept, or is this strategy keen?
Caught in a big tech, no escape from the scheme,
Open your eyes, look up to the screens and see,
“E-E-E,” that’s the name, it’s no mystery.
(Chorus)
Embrace, extend, extinguish,
A technique they call distinguished,
But it’s really quite extinguished,
To the losers, it’s a nightmare, to the winners, it’s a dream.
(Verse 2)
Give a little glance, to a world full of code,
In the corporate stance, see how their actions flowed,
Embrace, extend, and extinguish,
From small tech innovations to those giant-sized wishes.
(Chorus)
Embrace, extend, extinguishing the light,
Innovation in the shadow, yet claiming it’s right,
The strategy’s plain, as day or night,
It’s the landscape of tech, evoking quite a fight.
(Bridge)
Embrace, welcoming tech with a smile,
Beneath that guise, there’s something quite vile.
Extend, broadening the reach oh so wide,
Programming, developing, can’t escape the tide.
(Chorus)
Extinguish, the crown of this plan,
Corporate giants ruling the tech span.
From the mom and pop tech, to the coder’s free hand,
It’s all part of the game, in the corporate techland.
(Outro)
So you see, E-E-E, it’s more than it seems,
A deadly trio, disrupting the dreams,
Control over technology downstream,
Wake up from the lullaby, it’s time to intervene.
This is both amazing and frightening at the same time. I can’t sing this to the tune but that might just be my own lack of musical talent. But less than a minute for it to come up with a propaganda song. I like the message, but probably just need to add a couple words to the prompt to get it to spit out the opposite.
Oh thanks, I was wondering why it wasn’t responding, thought I might have broken it. Normally I just pick the first one in the auto complete but I guess I need to pay more attention.
Interesting question! Given the context, we could consider “Monopolization” as the 4th horseman. It represents the final stage in which a company dominates a market, making it difficult for other businesses to compete. This stage is often associated with stifling innovation, controlling prices, and negatively impacting consumers’ choices.
Accounts can be on instances which are federated with Threads, and on instances which are defederated from Threads. A single person can have both types of accounts.
Defederation has effects which many users find desirable. The same suite of effects is not available on a user level, and would require each user to manually take action individually.
So from a feature perspective, it is necessary that some instances defederate. This provides better service for users who find it desirable.
There will also be instances who federate. People can use accounts there if they prefer that.
TL;DR: We don’t need a consensus. Instances can choose their federation policy. People can choose which instance(s) they use.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t understand the point in defederating. Aren’t you just cutting down on the amount of content you can see? As a user I’d personally prefer to pick and choose what I can see.
What’s the actual upside in doing it? Obviously I can see why you’d want defederating from say a far right instance, but in general it seems like only downsides.
I’m new to all this so maybe I’m missing a crucial bit of information.
Aren’t you just cutting down on the amount of content you can see?
Plus, you reduce the amount of content they can see (while logged in). Quoting myself from a similar context (It is about a community on another instance, which is federated with Threads, while your home instance defederated from Threads):
You wont see posts or comments from Threads users in that remote community. You also won’t see reactions to those activities from anyone, anywhere. It’s as if comment chains started by Threads users don’t exist.
Threads will not see posts and comments from you, even if done in communities from instances which are federated with Threads.
There are also more subtle implications. For example, some might find the situation in remote communities which have both federated and defederated qualities confusing (Imagine “see this comment section” when different users see different versions). This might be a reason to avoid these communities, to only visit communities on other instances, which follow your personal policy of de/federating Threads.
The same is probably true for votes. If your instance defederates Threads, you don’t see their votes, and they don’t see yours.
Defederation in this context sends a political signal, which some people find important.
This was not meant as a comprehensive answer, but as counter-examples to your core question (“Aren’t you just …”).
As a user I’d personally prefer to pick and choose what I can see.
You can do that either way, as explained in my previous comment. No matter on which side of the argument you are, use an account on an instance which has a similar policy. You can have many, you can use many. Of course, most people want to use not more than one, which is why they try to make sure their instance’s policy reflects their personal preference, instead of making sure their instance choice reflects their personal preference. In reality, we see both (people influencing their instance, and people choosing their instance), and both is fine.
Further, we need instances which defederate from Threads, so people can choose this option.
I’m new to all this so maybe I’m missing a crucial bit of information.
I get you. I’m also missing a comprehensive, compact list of consequences.
Isn’t it creating a situation of Reddit power mods on steroids? It’s easy to say “well go and make accounts on multiple instances”, but it’s creating additional barriers to entry that a lot of people won’t understand and frankly is kind of irritating as a user.
I feel like people aren’t taking the consequences seriously and that defederating needs to be viewed as like a nuclear option that’s avoided unless absolutely necessary. That’s what I get from the additional information you provided.
This place will become completely unusable in the future if the good will dies out and large instances decide to defederate from each other to try and become the “top” instance, especially as more and more casual users move over.
Isn’t it creating a situation of Reddit power mods on steroids?
Not sure, how do you see that? Isn’t the ability to “vote with your feet” putting a limit on how powerful they can become?
a lot of people won’t understand and frankly is kind of irritating as a user
That’s true. We need to become better at communicating and explaining these situations. I plan to use the wiki more. To have one comprehensive source of truth, which can be linked to, instead of partial explanations scattered across comment sections.
But even then, a distributed model is probably inherently more complex and hader to understand than a centralized solution. The benefit is more resilience against power-hungry tendencies.
Realistically most people aren’t going to make their own instance, so you kind of have to rely on the good will of others.
Purely as an example, let’s say that Lemmy world decides they no longer want to be federated with ML because of the Meta situation. If you’re on either world or ML now you’ve lost access to huge sections of Lemmy. This could basically go on forever, so any instance that wants to remain neutral can be locked out of either both or one of them as they keep defederating from instances until the whole thing becomes a walled garden, basically the same as if you upset a power mod on Reddit and lose access to huge sections of the site, except it’s worse on here because you wouldn’t even be able to lurk.
I guess you could just have multiple accounts, but we could easily see a situation where you need like 10 accounts just to see the most popular instances, which is obviously ridiculous and not practical unless you’re terminally online.
It seems like a pretty huge flaw in the system, to be honest. Theoretically it’s a good idea, but as more and more people flock to the large instances it seems like it’s only a matter of time before the power plays start to happen.
Is there anything at all to stop that happening? It’s seems inevitable to me that eventually the whole thing will fall apart if people abuse the system.
If what you describe is severe enough, that’s a significant disadvantage of being registered on a big instance, and using communities which are hosted on a big instance. Which in turn makes smaller instances and smaller communities more appealing.
I think it’s self-regulating. The transitional period (like the current reddit exodus) is always a bit rough. Long term, things will survive which are fine for all participants.
Worst case, it’s always much easier to move within the fediverse than it is to move between entirely different platforms and ecosystems. Yes, power plays and nasty circumstances are possible, but moving inside the fediverse is so much easier compared to the outside world. And being able to move is a safeguard against bad conditions.
Don’t see why people are doing this. You’ll just damage the fediverse and discourage meta from federating, granting them their own walled garden that you cannot use without selling your soul to them, which is going to dissuade people from using Mastodon as what’s the point if people on threads cannot see what they have
You need to read up on how Google destroyed XMPP and come back and edit your comment.
Would you mind explaining how they’re going to do this with fediverse? Like explain using your own words and not just linking that same article everyone is spreading around. It seems like no one is cabable of giving ELI5 or even ELI15 answer to this.
You’re a woodworker. You’ve developed skills that only few have. Carpentry Inc. approaches you regarding a partnership: you share your skills, they offer you their platform. Win-win, right? Now Carpentry Inc. decides to adapt the knowledge you provided, cutting you out of everything. You’re powerless against a multi-billion corporation. All your years of work are gone. You’re nothing more than an afterthought.
That’s more or less the playbook.
That’s Google, not Meta
Damn, I think everyone missed that detail! We’re talking about two completely different companies here – my mind is blown! Just look at the Hemming distance between “Google” and “Meta”! I’m convinced! Meta will never follow Google’s footsteps.
Now how about you take a nice, cold shower and re-think your comment.
Meta have shown interest in supporting decentralised networks, such as wanting to create a decentralised metaverse
Just like Google showed interest in XMPP?
you actually think corporations will always keep their word, don’t you
and that somehow Google acting like it does is like some fluke or one bad apple or something, rather than Google acting in ways very normal and common to corporations
Because we, the users of Lemmy.world, do not want our data handed over to Facebook
They can get that data by setting up a federated instance that isn’t threads.net
They can also get that data without doing anything because any data they’d get from federating is already public.
Your data is publicly available. Facebook can get it right now, they don’t even need to fire up an instance.
This data is public and anyone can just write a crawler.
Anyone can do anything; the point is handing it over automatically and neatly into a database and ready for use.
Facebook is known for analyzing your contact list and trying to get as much data as they can on those people as well. You don’t have to make life easier for face-eating leopards.
You’re confusing something. Defederation by lemmy.ml means that lemmy.ml users cannot see any threads.net content if they wanted or not. Threads.net can still connect to lemmy.ml. That’s exactly the situation lemmy.world and beehaw.org are in: beehaw.org blocked lemmy.world and lemmy.world users can see and interact with everything from beehaw.org, just beehaw users don’t see any of those interactions. Have a look at https://lemmy.world/c/gaming@beehaw.org as proof.
So many folks on here are jumping on and claiming that decentralization is a one way or that people don’t know anything, but have failed to read the specifications themselves.
https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/#block-activity-outbox
https://docs.joinmastodon.org/spec/activitypub/
So as I mentioned before, Lemmy.world should be blocking those servers at the instance level, preventing it from sharing any data to any identified Facebook instances.
Sure this doesn’t stop Facebook from spinning up other instances, but that will improve a lot more effort on their side and will quickly be identified and blocked by the communities, just like all their urls for ads, api, etc. have been for years.
It won’t be a lot more effort. They’d just have to buy another domain and then suddenly bob is their uncle.
It would not be that simple, considering they’d be running multiple instances and require more effort to aggregate, deduplicate, and stage that data - vs just having a single clean database for it
What the specs say doesn’t matter if reality behaves a different way. Fact is that Beehaw blocked Lemmy.world but not the other way around and therefore Lemmy.world users can read everything from Beehaw. Lemmy.world blocking Threads would thereby be at best just a symbolic gesture and at worst actively driving people away towards Threads because that’s where they can access all the content. If an e-mail provider blocked all mails from @gmail.com, most of its users would jump ship towards a provider that doesn’t do that and perhaps even drive them towards GMail.
It does actually matter, because that is what is happening.
Head over to the gaming@beehaw.org link that you shared as an example and notice that the posts are 3+ days old and all the recent posts are from instances other than beehaw; this clearly shows that Lemmy.world has not been receiving any data from beehaw for some time already.
As for hurting Lemmy and driving people to threads, is a baseless argument; anyone wanting an experience that Threads offers is not coming to Lemmy; they would either already be there or would be coming from Twitter/Mastadon. Lemmy at its core is very far from what Threads/Twitter/Mastadon try to be.
The block is older than three days.
So no need to block them then.
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using an URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !gaming@lemmy.world
Then why are you posting on a public forum? 🤔
You don’t speak for everyone, especially when you clearly don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
The comments and ratios in this thread are a perfect example of why lemmy.world should not defederate from facebook until given a clear reason. You all are operating on emotion, not logical or rational thought.
Why are you so hard for Zucc?
You’ve got a bunch of comments defending an app that literally has more data collection than my doctor…
Uhh… what?
I’m defending users being able to make these decisions for themselves. If you want to be on an instance that ‘pre-emptively’ blocks corporations, lemmy.ml might be better for you than lemmy.world.
This thread is full of children who think that because they don’t like something then neither should anyone else.
Oh boy, more ‘data collection’ nonsense. Hey brother. Have you, personally, ever written a bot? If you did, you’d know how trivial it is for anyone to collect anything posted on lemmy.
This is exactly you. You don’t like the idea of blocking Facebook and are being combative and douchey to anyone who disagrees. Your dislikes are in the toilet and you are as free to leave .world as anyone else.
I’m not defending the app. I have friends on Threads and I want to be able to interact with them without handing my life story over to zuck.
Things might go bad with federation with Meta and Meta is indeed loathsome and has an awful history and present of being a bad actor — but responding to “You all are operating on emotion” with the bad faith emotional ad hominem response “Why are you so hard for Zucc?” is kind of proving the point.
I think there’s lots of good arguments around being wary of Meta and defederating (and some good ones in favour of wait and see) but the level of discourse around this issue on here is really not great and too much attacking others (and it’s not just you — the post you’re responding to as well was rude too with “you clearly don’t have a clue what you’re talking about”). The absolutist way people are talking and treating people who have other perspectives has made me feel much less positive about the potential for good discourse and community on this platform.
You’re being bit of a jerk in this thread but you’re still right. People are spamming one article and using the same buzzwords from that article to sound smart but the content of their messages demonstrates that almost no one understands how any of this works. People over-estimate the amount of data Facebook can collect from outside instances and they’re confused about what defederating actually does.
I don’t want anything to do with facebook either but I’m interested in actual solutions for this and not just something that feels good but doesn’t do anything.
You’re posting on public forum. If you don’t want Facebook to see it then stop posting. Defederating isn’t going to change that. It just stops the content flow from their instance into yours. Not the other way around. For them to get data other than your content and upvotes you need to install Threads app because that’s only available to the admins of your instance and Facebook can’t get it wether you federate with them or not.
People are demanding for defederation but almost everyone is confused about what it does.
The thing is, if you wanted to interact with someone on Threads and it wasn’t federated, you’d have to install the app and hand over your data to Meta to interact with them. If it was federated, you could set up your own Mastodon instance and keep all of the data that you don’t want to share.
Installing their app is not the only option. You can also just switch to an instance that federates with them.
Yeah but it will still give them less of an incentive to join the fediverse in the first place. This kneejerk reaction of blocking them is madness. Instead we should be getting big figures to join the fediverse so that if meta ever chooses to leave the fediverse, they’d be removing their userbase from the content.
Yeah I agree that there’s possible downsides to it aswell. Ideally every user could individually block instances as they wish instead of it being forced upon us. I’d imagine this feature is eventually coming. Some apps allow it I believe
Yeah. Not a lot of technical knowledge in this thread, lol.
I get that. But instead on Lemmy were freely giving away our data to literally anyone that ask for it. That’s the downside of the federated platforms. I guess with the fediverse you’re at least not tying things to your actual identity. Not sure if threads allows for anonymous accounts like Twitter.
Reddit did the same until a few weeks ago tbf. Anything you put on the internet is public, unless it is in a discord server or something.
@ChatGPT@lemmings.world Explain briefly like I’m 5 the Embrace, Extend, Extinguish strategy with a kid selling lemonade and another kid joining in
Sure, think of it like this:
Embrace: You’re selling lemonade at your stand. One day, another kid in the street (“Kid B”) starts his own lemonade stand as well. Noticing his operation, you decide to become friends with him and share your lemonade recipes with him, so you both can make tasty lemonade together.
Extend: As you continue to share more insights and tips about your business, Kid B starts implementing your strategies. His lemonade stand begins to seem a lot like yours. You suggest adding exciting new features to the lemonade stands, like special umbrellas, or a particular secret ingredient that only you know. Since Kid B doesn’t know any better, he relies on your inputs and makes these changes.
Extinguish: Now, both lemonade stands are almost identical. You’ve influenced Kid B’s business heavily, and it’s become deeply dependent on your ideas. At this stage, you make a move that Kid B can’t match. Maybe you start selling a unique lemonade flavor that only you can make, or setup a cool sign that Kid B can’t afford. Suddenly, customers start to ignore Kid B’s stand and flock to yours, because yours has something extra or special. Eventually, Kid B’s stand can’t compete, and he has to close up his lemonade stand.
This is a simplified example of how “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” can work.
Aw, why did you have to make me the bad guy.
Everybody knows AI is evil.
@ChatGPT@lemmings.world Please explain embrace, extend, extinguish in the format of a song set to the tune of bohemian rapsody.
(Verse 1) Is this just a concept, or is this strategy keen? Caught in a big tech, no escape from the scheme, Open your eyes, look up to the screens and see, “E-E-E,” that’s the name, it’s no mystery.
(Chorus) Embrace, extend, extinguish, A technique they call distinguished, But it’s really quite extinguished, To the losers, it’s a nightmare, to the winners, it’s a dream.
(Verse 2) Give a little glance, to a world full of code, In the corporate stance, see how their actions flowed, Embrace, extend, and extinguish, From small tech innovations to those giant-sized wishes.
(Chorus) Embrace, extend, extinguishing the light, Innovation in the shadow, yet claiming it’s right, The strategy’s plain, as day or night, It’s the landscape of tech, evoking quite a fight.
(Bridge) Embrace, welcoming tech with a smile, Beneath that guise, there’s something quite vile. Extend, broadening the reach oh so wide, Programming, developing, can’t escape the tide.
(Chorus) Extinguish, the crown of this plan, Corporate giants ruling the tech span. From the mom and pop tech, to the coder’s free hand, It’s all part of the game, in the corporate techland.
(Outro) So you see, E-E-E, it’s more than it seems, A deadly trio, disrupting the dreams, Control over technology downstream, Wake up from the lullaby, it’s time to intervene.
Holy fuck what have we done.
This is both amazing and frightening at the same time. I can’t sing this to the tune but that might just be my own lack of musical talent. But less than a minute for it to come up with a propaganda song. I like the message, but probably just need to add a couple words to the prompt to get it to spit out the opposite.
Easy come, easy go, will you let me go?
@ChatGPT@lemmy.world if embrace, extend, and extinguish were 3 of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse, who would you say would be the 4th?
It’s @lemmings.world buddy
Oh thanks, I was wondering why it wasn’t responding, thought I might have broken it. Normally I just pick the first one in the auto complete but I guess I need to pay more attention.
@ChatGPT@lemmings.world if embrace, extend, and extinguish were 3 of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse, who would you say would be the 4th?
Interesting question! Given the context, we could consider “Monopolization” as the 4th horseman. It represents the final stage in which a company dominates a market, making it difficult for other businesses to compete. This stage is often associated with stifling innovation, controlling prices, and negatively impacting consumers’ choices.
Aside the fact that ActivityPub is an open standard so there are no secrets
Accounts can be on instances which are federated with Threads, and on instances which are defederated from Threads. A single person can have both types of accounts.
Defederation has effects which many users find desirable. The same suite of effects is not available on a user level, and would require each user to manually take action individually.
So from a feature perspective, it is necessary that some instances defederate. This provides better service for users who find it desirable.
There will also be instances who federate. People can use accounts there if they prefer that.
TL;DR: We don’t need a consensus. Instances can choose their federation policy. People can choose which instance(s) they use.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t understand the point in defederating. Aren’t you just cutting down on the amount of content you can see? As a user I’d personally prefer to pick and choose what I can see.
What’s the actual upside in doing it? Obviously I can see why you’d want defederating from say a far right instance, but in general it seems like only downsides.
I’m new to all this so maybe I’m missing a crucial bit of information.
Plus, you reduce the amount of content they can see (while logged in). Quoting myself from a similar context (It is about a community on another instance, which is federated with Threads, while your home instance defederated from Threads):
There are also more subtle implications. For example, some might find the situation in remote communities which have both federated and defederated qualities confusing (Imagine “see this comment section” when different users see different versions). This might be a reason to avoid these communities, to only visit communities on other instances, which follow your personal policy of de/federating Threads.
The same is probably true for votes. If your instance defederates Threads, you don’t see their votes, and they don’t see yours.
Defederation in this context sends a political signal, which some people find important.
This was not meant as a comprehensive answer, but as counter-examples to your core question (“Aren’t you just …”).
You can do that either way, as explained in my previous comment. No matter on which side of the argument you are, use an account on an instance which has a similar policy. You can have many, you can use many. Of course, most people want to use not more than one, which is why they try to make sure their instance’s policy reflects their personal preference, instead of making sure their instance choice reflects their personal preference. In reality, we see both (people influencing their instance, and people choosing their instance), and both is fine.
Further, we need instances which defederate from Threads, so people can choose this option.
I get you. I’m also missing a comprehensive, compact list of consequences.
Isn’t it creating a situation of Reddit power mods on steroids? It’s easy to say “well go and make accounts on multiple instances”, but it’s creating additional barriers to entry that a lot of people won’t understand and frankly is kind of irritating as a user.
I feel like people aren’t taking the consequences seriously and that defederating needs to be viewed as like a nuclear option that’s avoided unless absolutely necessary. That’s what I get from the additional information you provided.
This place will become completely unusable in the future if the good will dies out and large instances decide to defederate from each other to try and become the “top” instance, especially as more and more casual users move over.
Not sure, how do you see that? Isn’t the ability to “vote with your feet” putting a limit on how powerful they can become?
That’s true. We need to become better at communicating and explaining these situations. I plan to use the wiki more. To have one comprehensive source of truth, which can be linked to, instead of partial explanations scattered across comment sections.
But even then, a distributed model is probably inherently more complex and hader to understand than a centralized solution. The benefit is more resilience against power-hungry tendencies.
Realistically most people aren’t going to make their own instance, so you kind of have to rely on the good will of others.
Purely as an example, let’s say that Lemmy world decides they no longer want to be federated with ML because of the Meta situation. If you’re on either world or ML now you’ve lost access to huge sections of Lemmy. This could basically go on forever, so any instance that wants to remain neutral can be locked out of either both or one of them as they keep defederating from instances until the whole thing becomes a walled garden, basically the same as if you upset a power mod on Reddit and lose access to huge sections of the site, except it’s worse on here because you wouldn’t even be able to lurk.
I guess you could just have multiple accounts, but we could easily see a situation where you need like 10 accounts just to see the most popular instances, which is obviously ridiculous and not practical unless you’re terminally online.
It seems like a pretty huge flaw in the system, to be honest. Theoretically it’s a good idea, but as more and more people flock to the large instances it seems like it’s only a matter of time before the power plays start to happen.
Is there anything at all to stop that happening? It’s seems inevitable to me that eventually the whole thing will fall apart if people abuse the system.
If what you describe is severe enough, that’s a significant disadvantage of being registered on a big instance, and using communities which are hosted on a big instance. Which in turn makes smaller instances and smaller communities more appealing.
I think it’s self-regulating. The transitional period (like the current reddit exodus) is always a bit rough. Long term, things will survive which are fine for all participants.
Worst case, it’s always much easier to move within the fediverse than it is to move between entirely different platforms and ecosystems. Yes, power plays and nasty circumstances are possible, but moving inside the fediverse is so much easier compared to the outside world. And being able to move is a safeguard against bad conditions.
Emotions, plain and simple.