Dear , here's a poll for you! Completely hypothetically, if and implemented , would you be inclined to allow them to federate with your instance?

Yes, I appreciate that "it depends" and "it's complicated" (it really really is!). But please 🐻 with me, I'm just curious about your gut feeling about this. :blobcatcoffee:

@rysiek the only thing I smell is "embrace&extinguish" so no

@rysiek My gut feeling is Birdsite. Since it is nowhere as bad as Facebook. But I would federate with either if they themselves became decentralized (and deal with each node on a case by case basis).

@rysiek Personally I only have people on Twitter anyway, there's nothing to gain with Facebook federating. If anything I can see more generalist, demographic-oriented instances enabling Facebook, but that sure won't be me
@rysiek the one you should have actually considered is Instagram, that has MASSIVE network effect among the more active, fedi-like demography

@rysiek I don't think so, and that's because giant instances are effectively impossible to moderate. If Twitter broke up into many instances, per country/region or per topic, then I'd be more inclined to federate with some of them.

@rysiek Honestly I think it's silly to develop all these wonderful open standards and then get a bee in our bonnet when the 'wrong people' start using them.

Give end users the choice to filter that out, if they so wish.

Facebook - in particular - model their business on closing people into their ecosystem. I would welcome them adopting open standards, which would give end users more choice and freedom.

@ChrisWere @rysiek
I see in your analysis missing the asymmetrical power relation facebook maintains, their mass surveillance and mass manipulation, their enabling of fascists. Facebook is modeling their ecosystem in mass surveillance and mass manipulation (some name it advertisement). Maintaining a walled garden, is to increase their power, but not their main focus.

@ChrisWere @rysiek
The walled garden is not their main goal, it’s a tool they use. When ever they fear of loosing power due to being a wallet garden, they would adopt to those this moving infrastructure, to continue abusing their power. #facebook

Know your enemies.

@syster @ChrisWere these are all good points, but here's an honest question: *perhaps* it would be possible to disempower nazis in general by making Facebook federate?

Cray cray, I know! Hear me out.

Right now users on birdsite and Facebook are between rock and a hard place: retaining access to their loved ones and friends on these platforms means leaving themselves exposed to nazis.

Federatiing would mean moving from Fb or :birdsite: would be less of an all-or-nothing step for most people.

@syster @ChrisWere this *could* mean that
a). large platforms' power would be greatly diminished;
b). whether or not they deal with nazis on their systems could become less of an issue; and
c). *because* people can leave in droves, and *because* blocking on Fb or :birdsite: would no longer have the onus of censorship ("there are other servers, dude"), it would be more of a no-brainer to block nazis there for those platforms.

All of this is purely hypothetical, but I think worth considering.

@rysiek @ChrisWere
I get your point. But I fear that fb would come up with some strategies that makes people not to leave fb, but to join one many of their other platforms, that would all federate with each other. Promotion of building a pseudo decentralized infrastructure with fb/weibo/vk/… as leaders could be done through celebs they through money at, to be part of their network. They could also limit some functionality towards the fediverse, making people still depending on fb. 1/2

@rysiek @ChrisWere
Servers of the current fediverse might start to federate with them, and by that facebook will grow step by step influence. After all, they are not some sort of neutral platform, but having their own political agenda. #facebook

@rysiek @ChrisWere
But obviously that is just hypothetical and we don’t know what is going to happen. I just fear it’s to simple to say, it will bring benefit if fb starts to federate. My point is: We do not know, and it has the risk of just bringing damage. Remember that facebook did “support” already a decentralized protocol, but only maintained and harvested it for their own benefit afaik.
#facebook #fediverse

@rysiek considering how those two particular companies are completely at odds with my desire for a free internet, i wouldn't want to federate with them or expose any of my info (or the info of any other users of my instance) to them.


A lot of users came from FB/birbsite *because* they weren't comfortable with the way that these companies were exploiting their data

How big of a fuck-you to those users who trusted you would it be to gift-wrap all their data again and hand it back to the exact organizations that they intentionally left?

This is definitely how I would feel, as a new user coming from there. I abandoned ship specifically due to data protection & their policies on suspension & banning. I'd feel kicked if they just waltzed up here.

@bgcarlisle @rysiek gift wrap data that's already publicly available and for the most part machine readable?


i get the impression from some interviews, Jack doesn't really want to deal with birdsite's bullshit anymore. they just wanted their neat little SMS workalike and now they're stuck in the intersection of plutocrats demanding censorship and users getting mad at said censorship and then people who don't know whats going on in between. they might be seeking activitypub so they can jettison being responsible for dealing with every dime store autocracy's whining.

facebook though, i don't trust. they are very happy to keep people in the box.

@bgcarlisle @rysiek i agree what the sentiment, but if your look at the absurd lengths a lot of these companies go to to scrape data, there is zero chance defederating from their main instance would stop them from accessing fedi users’ data. if that’s what they wanted they’d just setup some innocuous other instance and scrape from there. (i wouldn’t be surprised if they’re already doing so)

@rysiek On my side this is a big NO due to privacy reasons.

I don't want that my data go on their server to be sold after that... I'm not their product and from my point of view our users are not too 😉

@rysiek the social norms and values are so different we'd end up suspending them after a number of reports anyway.
We might federate with them on silance maybe.

@rysiek I would stop using and promoting the fediverse, if I would see twitter or facebook being promoted to federate with.

no to facist enablers!

I'm here to stay away from facebook, twitter, youtube, and their trolls. I'd move again, or give up completely on "social media".

also, this idea is *not* "complicated", nor "nuanced"; this is black&white, first principles.

@rysiek Wolf Howl would not federate with either site. It goes against the purpose of the fediverse and why we are present within it.

@naia what is the purpose of the Fediverse? Honest question. I have my own answer, of course, but I am curious about what others think.

@rysiek for me, it is to escape the likes of Facebook and Twitter. In order to have a decentralized social media platform where individual instances control their own content and set their own rules, but where one instance cannot entirely silence a user.

@rysiek One-way federation is a possibility - consume but not produce or vice versa. But where my mind goes is that being able to tease people out of /the interface/ of the majors is a huge part of this thing working at all. So some limitation is required in order to do that.

@rysiek maybe silence/suspend by default, and then work with allow-lists?

otherwise the amount of moderation-work would be overwhelming!

@rysiek Yes, since it's possible to defederate individual users as well. At least until that becomes too much of a headache, then I'd be more inclined to drop them wholesale.

@rysiek Not an admin, so I didn't vote, but I say no. Imo that could wind up exhausting the Fediverse not only in terms of resources, but also in cultural terms. Who wants that.

@rysiek I voted federate with both, but if you're interested in the more nuances answer:
I already filter out twitter stuff, so it's possible that I'd block Twitter. However, I think I would rather just quarantine them (and thus only send public posts) instead of completely blocking.
On FB there are a lot of people I left behind when moving here so I would probably be very strict in the traffic I allow and send. Maybe also quarantining, but if that means that I won't be able to interact with people there, I'd probably write a custom mrf and make the access very fine-grained.
In general I do think having them federate would be a win for decentralisation.
@rysiek I would immediately defed facebook because of the insanity they constantly do with all their data (literally shown to be selling it for the purposes of mass manipulation...)
I would initially allow birdsite, since most of the complaints there are re: moderation policies (I don't care, they don't affect users) and timeline manipulation (non-chronological), which shouldn't affect me either, since that is a client-side thing.
However, if birdsite tried something funny I would yeet them.
@rysiek People are probably avoiding Facebook more because associating one's real life personality with one's Fediverse personality would cause too much trouble.
@rysiek @tk i would drop all non essential posts from them as the volume of posts is too high the the signal to noise ratio too low.
@tk that's a given. Facebook doesnt care about decentralization they just want more data. @rysiek
@tk @rysiek and the moment twitter joins the network is the moment twitter dies and the fediverse wins.

@rysiek while I see some rationale of federsting with fb/twitter (allowing people to exit walled gardens without leaving their less savy friends) the main reason I use mastodon is precisely that people here are much nicer and culture is much better than on Facebook. I dont miss the social media torrent of updates, and politics, and problems and stuff.

@rysiek I'd rather unblock Gab than federating with the Birdsite or Facebook 🤢

@rysiek I am shocked.

Why would so many people vote to isolate #Twitter and #FaceBook? Wasn't the whole point of the #Fediverse for everyone to be able to talk to everyone anyway? And to be able to migrate from social network site to social network site?

@realcaseyrollins @rysiek The main item I can think of -- when big corporations get involved in an open spec, they expect, nay demand, to be given an overly large seat at the table. Look at how any of the w3c specs have gone with corporate involvement. It will be twisted and the implementation details designed around their needs and use cases. The hobbyist running a couple hundred user instance will have no seat at that table. And if no seat is given to FB and Twitter they'll just use their oversized influence to ignore the spec and do as they will anyways.

@lordbowlich @rysiek Specs get ignored anyways tho; #Misskey, #Gab, (and to a lesser degree #Pleroma and vanilla #Mastodon) all have different, incompatible feature, or react differently than each other.

The better course would be to federate but ignore the #Twitter and #FaceBook software, limiting their influence on the development process.

@realcaseyrollins @rysiek i'm not so sure 'everybody able to talk to everybody else' is a safe goal to have. i'd rather put marginalized or vulnerable people's safety above an ideal for everyone to be able to seamlessly communicate with everyone else.

@anaerant @rysiek No speech on the #Fediverse makes anyone unsafe; which instances allow for violent threats, or doxxing?

@realcaseyrollins @rysiek that's a bold claim to make, especially since there are already instances that host harassers.
Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!