dartos

joined 2 years ago
[–] dartos@reddthat.com 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

If you’re in the know, sure, but if the fediverse interacts with threads we could expose literally billions of people to the larger fediverse.

Maybe while the fediverse is still getting it’s legs defederating is the move, but I mean literally billions of people being made aware of the fediverse would be amazing.

[–] dartos@reddthat.com -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

That infosec post up some good points.

The issue I see is that defederating them doesn’t resolve any of the issues they pointed out. Meta is still able to see most information in the fediverse, their built in user base is so large, that it makes the fediverse look totally empty by comparison. I don’t think we realistically prevent much disinformation by walking them off (though we do prevent some)

I just think it’s such a missed opportunity to grow the fediverse. Like now we’re 100% certain that threads users won’t take part in the larger lemmy communities at all.

EEE is a real thing, but it’s a balance act. You can be embraced and extended without being extinguished as long as you do it carefully (I mean look at some of the open source projects of the past decade. Typescript, bucklescript, react, electron and even companies like GitHub, which M$ owns, but hasn’t been mucking up too badly)

Maybe defederating for now is the right move, so the fediverse has time to grow into its own, but I don’t think “meta evil” is a good enough reason to just block out potentially billions of potential fediverse participants is all.

[–] dartos@reddthat.com 1 points 2 years ago

I don’t think it does. ActivityPub is just a specification. The spec itself is under a very permissive license https://www.w3.org/copyright/software-license-2015/

[–] dartos@reddthat.com 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I was talking about Linux specifically because it’s under the GPL license. Threads isn’t open source at all afaik, so it doesn’t really apply

[–] dartos@reddthat.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Honestly it doesn’t even matter. If meta really cared about fediverse data, they’d set up their own unnamed server, make a bot account that just follows and subscribes to as much as it can. Nobody would know to block it, it’d just look like another user.

[–] dartos@reddthat.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

FWIW the maga crowd is obviously down with being part of a cult of personality. It’s easy to stand in front of them, say edgy shit, and be showered with praise.

[–] dartos@reddthat.com 3 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Well yeah he could, but he can’t retroactively apply that license change, so the Linux foundation would just keep rolling on with their own fork.

[–] dartos@reddthat.com 6 points 2 years ago

See that’s a good point. Facebook is going to get fediverse data regardless of defederating them. Most of this stuff is public anyway.

But displaying fediverse content next to ads w/o consent is kinda gross

[–] dartos@reddthat.com 2 points 2 years ago

This is what I mean.

Meta is going to get public data one way or another. It’s not hard to scrape the fediverse normally.

Like all defederating them does is make the fediverse more closed off, not less

You can’t even really block scrapers without actually locking down a site. You can just ask nice bots (like googles crawler) to not index you.

[–] dartos@reddthat.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Can’t they just scrape the data anyway?

[–] dartos@reddthat.com 4 points 2 years ago
[–] dartos@reddthat.com 2 points 2 years ago

Bet you it’s a paid ad spot. Node based editors are nothing new

view more: ‹ prev next ›