this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
500 points (96.0% liked)

Showerthoughts

29692 readers
1895 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    1. NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    2. Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    3. Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct-----

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Meta can introduce their signature rage farming to the Fediverse. They don't need to control Mastodon. All they have to do is introduce it in their app. Show every Threads user algorithmically filtered content from the Fediverse precisely tailored for maximum rage. When the rage inducing content came from Mastodon, the enraged Thread users will flood that Mastodon threads with the familiar rage-filled Facebook comment section vomit. This in turn will enrage Mastodon users, driving them to engage, at least in the short to mid term. All the while Meta sells ads in-between posts. And that's how they rage farm the Fediverse without EEE-ing the technology. Meta can effectively EEE the userbase. The last E is something Meta may not intend but would likely happen. It consists of a subset of the Fediverse users leaving the network or segregating themselves in a small vomit-free bubble.

Some people asked what EEE is:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] STUPIDVIPGUY@lemmy.world 79 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Yeah imo this is the only way. Fediverse should be completely user-owned, we need to isolate any corporation that tries to get involved.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 50 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Non-profits like Mozilla and Wikimedia might be OK.

[–] Bushwhack@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

I would at least give them a chance. Meta is DOA.

[–] kava@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Either we have an open system or we don't.

It's sort of like open source encryption algorithms versus security by obscurity. One is totally open because it's foundation is strong. The other is hidden because it is actually weak.

Which are we going to be?

[–] hikaru755@feddit.de 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This feels very close to the paradox of tolerance, honestly. To achieve maximum tolerance, you can not tolerate those who are intolerant themselves, or they will destroy you from within. I think something similar applies here. To achieve a maximally open system, be open by default, but only to those who actually share the goal to keep the system as open as possible, and defend vigorously against those who don't.

[–] Illecors@lemmy.cafe 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We are going to be open. Open to the idea that a bucket of shit does not have to be forced upon us. Open to using the tools to get rid of said bucket.

[–] kava@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What I think is interesting about this is the decision to federate goes down to individual instances. So for example mastodon.social is the biggest - their decision is very important.

But on the smaller level, users will be able to choose instances that won't federated with Meta. And they will be able to choose the inverse.

What I see happening is that the ones that do choose to federated with Meta will grow larger and sort of suck up most of the userbase. At the end of the day, social media sites are only as valuable as the number of users and the interactions between those users.

[–] Rusticus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But to give power to the users we’ve got to solve the username problem. Usernames need to be global so there is no penalty to moving between instances.

[–] kava@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Why not just do username@instance and then if you wanna transfer over to somewhere else you have to change your username?

I don't really view that as an issue. The real issue is allowing transfer in the first place, which I don't see anyone doing right now but I agree it would spark a lot of healthy competition between different sites on the Fediverse

[–] scroll_responsibly@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Encryption standards are open, but would you give your private keys to someone untrustworthy?

[–] kava@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

No, but I think that's more akin to giving Meta your instance admin password. Federating would be more like sharing your public key. Which, you know, is sort of the whole point.