People are still joining social networks which have no federation protocols at all ?

Follow

@sl007 @cjd fun fact 1., the author of that paper is @1br0wn here
fun fact 2.: there's an IGF panel today with him, myself, and a few other fantastic people, about this very topic:
intgovforum.org/multilingual/c

I'll share a stream link once I get it.

· · Web · 2 · 3 · 4

@rysiek @sl007 @1br0wn
Oh cool, I was going to ask - how do you require "open federation" while still giving the admin the flexibility to block instances which they deem to be bad?

@cjd How do you let restaurants toss out disruptive guests but not discriminate on race/sex/gender/religion etc.? @rysiek @sl007 @1br0wn

@pettter @cjd @sl007 exactly; one important question is "why" an instance was blocked.

Another one is how big is the blocking instance. If we're talking hypothetically Facebook or Twitter joining fedi, I see no issue with any other fedi instance deciding not to federate with them, but I feel Facebook and Twitter would need to have very good and well-documented reason to be allowed to defederate from a fedi instance, due to their monopolistic position.

But very interested in @1br0wn's view.

@sl007 @pettter @cjd @1br0wn @Argus I think the talk is outstanding, and is a crucial resource for me, in fact.

I'll probably write something up afterwards, too.

@rysiek @sl007 @pettter @1br0wn @Argus
Great video, I finally watched to the end, clearly articulates reason I expect Fedeverse to outlast the silos.
However, a lot is riding on the right of mods to apply their CoC arbitrarily. If people *could* sue for wrongful defederation, you know exactly who would be first to the courthouse.

@cjd It's an easy thing to exempt instances with <50 (or whatever) users from legal liabilities, for example. @rysiek @sl007 @1br0wn @Argus

@cjd Also to for example to only disallow bad defederation, not whitelist the good kinds. @rysiek @sl007 @1br0wn @Argus

@pettter @cjd @sl007 @1br0wn @Argus I would be way more worried about secondary centralization, as we've seen with e-mail for example.

The issue is not with small instances defederating from one another, the issue is with a corporate hijack through centralization and then defederating all the small instances, akin to how e-mail got all but hijacked by the big players and spam blacklists make it hard to run small e-mail servers.

@pettter @cjd @sl007 @1br0wn @Argus so there needs to be a kind of measured, gradual response to instances defederating. Small instances do whatever they want, huge ones need to be bound by some rules I guess. That's an interesting way of introducing friction that works against economies of scale (we want such friction!).

@pettter @cjd @sl007 @1br0wn @Argus another interesting question is: what does "defederation" even mean in a network that is *expected* to be fractured, as fedi is? There are islands on fedi, and that's okay, so that needs to be taken into account when creating such rules.

Either way, at this point, I think the scrutiny really would need to focus only on Twitter and Facebook, if they are made to federate.

@rysiek @pettter @cjd @sl007 @1br0wn @Argus

consider also that 2 years ago we already had the issue with a largish Japanese company (Pixiv/Pawoo) buying at *least* one Mastodon instance, becoming a funder of the project as well as taking over several smaller domains, and the "West" having to (partly) defederate from it due to legal differences over what content is permitted in JP and Europe - this hasn't really disrupted the Fediverse greatly..

@vfrmedia @pettter @cjd @sl007 @1br0wn @Argus exactly. Since each person can have as many accounts on as many instances as they like, many weird problems just become non-issues.

Federation islands? Whatever, you can just set-up an account somewhere in each of them.

@vfrmedia @pettter @cjd @sl007 @1br0wn @Argus by the way, I am finding this thread to be a very useful way for me to organize my thoughts and prepare for the panel. So, thank you all for helping out. :blobcatcoffee:

@vfrmedia @pettter @cjd @sl007 @1br0wn @Argus session should be streamed on the official IGF youtube channel:
youtube.com/user/igf

Just go there at 17:30 and search for a live stream with "interoperability" in the title

@rysiek Good luck today. The live stream appears to be down? (youtube.com/user/igf/live) What's a good link to follow your panel?

@rysiek I just finished this. What a fascinating conversation - I love to see the talk range from the techical to policy.

@rysiek Hi! I would like to see it but I don’t like to click in GAFAM tools… Could you please publish it on Peertube? Thanks in advance :)

@rysiek See also Google Talk essentially killing XMPP by not adding SSL. @cjd @sl007 @1br0wn @Argus

@pettter @cjd @rysiek @sl007 @1br0wn

I'm chiming in here late to the conversation... so let me add a complexifier!

Different users express different *values* in federation. Some value limited interactions to protect their communities, and want federation to be "opt-in". Others value the discoverability that comes with scale - can I find William Shatner? The two values are opposed, and valid.

So in addition to thinking about "how", users in an interoperable environment also consider "whether."

@Argus @pettter @cjd @sl007 @1br0wn yes! I think I made that point in the panel when I mentioned that many instances will not want to federate with Facebook and :birdsite: but that's fine and the important thing is that that's a choice *users* will have (to go on an instance that does, or doesn't).

Also, I did make a poll about this very thing a while back, so there is data!
mastodon.social/@rysiek/103775

Nice, I'm looking forward to diving into this!

In the video @rysiek shared, I appreciated Maryant Fenandez Perez' emphasis on the privacy issue. Makes me think of @cjd's presentation at #apconf2020 - where despite defederating with Gab his posts ended up there. Maybe regulation will in part be in making sure instances honor the privacy requests of users...

@pettter @sl007 @1br0wn

@rysiek @cjd @pettter @sl007 @1br0wn

0% Facebook only. 👀

Speaking personally, I would be interested in contacting friends and family on centralized platforms.

@Argus @cjd @pettter @sl007 @1br0wn yup. I think this is somewhat related to how the Fediverse kinda sorta started off as a :birdsite: alternative, and that still remains somewhere in the psyche, so to speak.

Still, 21% said "both". I'd say that sounds pretty good to me.

@sl007
Thanks for looping me in. I hadn't read this report, diving into it now.

@rysiek @pettter @cjd @sl007 Hi all. Indeed, the EU (and several member states including Germany and France) plan to apply these rules only to the very largest platforms — so certainly Facebook — it’s unclear even Twitter is large enough to qualify

@rysiek @pettter @cjd @sl007 This is one of the most controversial areas of the DSA/DMA, with some companies (eg booking.com) furiously lobbying not to be included. The EC has at various points talked about 12-20 companies globally in total. FB would clearly be in that list based on user numbers/market share in messaging and social media. But it’s a determination based on all of the company’s activities, not single products/services such as IM.

@1br0wn @pettter @cjd @sl007 yeah, I would expect this to be the most controversial part. There really isn't a good objective threshold here, so it comes down to a line in the sand and a political decision.

I for one feel Booking.com should be included. they are a de facto monopolist. So should Airbnb.com.

I guess talking to EDRi about this would make sense, eh @whvholst?

@rysiek @1br0wn @pettter @cjd @sl007 Yes, there's one policy advisor who is spending most of his time on this dossier, Jan Penfrat.

@whvholst @rysiek @1br0wn @pettter @cjd

just btw, attended CCIA Panel w.
MEP Karen Melchior and
MEP/Honourable Patrick Breyer –
asked 2 questions - got answer mastodon.social/@cjd/105218928

@rysiek @1br0wn @pettter @cjd @sl007 Thanks @whvholst. I think the EU's general idea of going after gatekeepers, i.e. defined based on a platform's structural position in an ecosystem rather than solely looking at size, is a good one.

@1br0wn @rysiek @pettter @sl007
Thanks for the explanation, FWIW I think malicious compliance is the biggest threat here. I have a number of scenarios in my head but probably worst is:
1. FB has to federate, so they do - but only their EU service
2. Anti-EU extremist groups start servers
3. FB shrugs, "nothing we can do, rules are rules"
I believe @freakazoid used to work with FB so perhaps can shed some light on their corporate culture - help guess if this is a realistic risk...

@cjd @1br0wn @rysiek @pettter @freakazoid

just btw – in 2 hours
See the Congress “regulars” Jack and the boss of Torsten Beeck
- they are explaining content “moderation” again to a Senate committee.

How can we watch?
Happy little incidents live via Senate or @CNET here

cnet.com/news/facebook-twitter

@1br0wn @rysiek @pettter @cjd

Thank you for answering.
Do you have any idea which particular german politicians we can approach?
It will probably not be Doro Baer, I guess?

@1br0wn @sl007 @rysiek @pettter @cjd Good question. So far it looks like responsible units in BMWi seem at least interested in the idea of mandating federation/interoperability for the largest platforms. Idk whether anyone in the Bundestag follow or supports this though.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

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!