this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2023
43 points (97.8% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35806 readers
1952 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Since news leaked out 2 days ago that Facebook has approached Mastodon developers and admins - requiring non-disclosure agreements first - the whole microverse (i.e. mastodon / pleroma etc, the micro-blogging part of fedi) has been talking about nothing but that and Facebook's imminent entry into the fediverse with an as yet not clearly defined entity called Barcelona or p92. This woud be very roughly comparable to Reddit saying they are going to federate with lemmy.

Yet here on lemmy I could only find a relatively small discussion.

https://kbin.social/m/fediverse/t/62958

Did the lemmyverse not know or just not care that much?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] political_avacado@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think meta is deliberately trying to fly under the radar until it too late. Several fedi communities have signed a 'pledge' saying they will actively block meta fedi content from their servers. (Similar to what most are already doing with Truth Social which is just another mastodon instance).

[–] Fabriek@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Thruth.social was actually never part of the Fediverse. It does use AcitivtyPub, but it doesn't federate with other instances: https://pocketnow.com/trump-truth-social-network-removes-most-freedom-friendly-features-fediverse/

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'll be honest, part of the reason I didn't come to the Fediverse earlier was I knew that Truth Social was "on" Mastodon. That discouraged me from investigating anything about it. When Reddit forced my hand and I looked into it further, I realized that avoiding the whole space because Truth Social ran on it was as absurd as avoiding the Internet because Fox News has a website.

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

If I'm not mistaken, I think Gab and Parler were also just re-branded ActivityPub Free Software (which sucks, but changing the license to prevent bad actors from using it would make it un-Free and therefore the cure would be worse than the disease). It just goes to show how those hypocrites are happy to claim to be superior in their rugged individualism, but actually just take from others instead of accomplishing anything themselves.

[–] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

undefined> hypocrites are happy to claim to be superior in their rugged individualism

Few Libertarians would be able to live, let along enjoy living, in Latin America outside of the rich neighborhoods and resorts.

[–] hiyaaaaa23@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

The thing is because it doesn’t federate, for all intents and purposes it’s simply a Twitter clone that just happens to be based on mastodon

[–] guyman@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Very interesting. I had no idea truth social used ActivityPub.

[–] Dick_Justice@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

I have no desire to interact with Facebook via Lemmy. Fuck that idea. And I think it's shady that there's Mastodon admins having secret meetings with Fuckerberg and his cronies and keeping the details secret. I think it's even worse to see Mastodon servers defederating with other servers just because their admins are critical of Meta. I feel bad for all the users who fled to Mastodon just to get away from Big Corporate Social Media just to be shushed and have their concerns handwaved by their Admin who seems bizarrely starstruck. It all leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.

[–] JeffCraig@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think there's probably a reasonable explanation for this. The entire idea of Mastodon was built around getting away from companies like Meta. The admins arent going to just do a 180 on that.

It's more likely that Meta wants to do a similar thing as Truth Social and they are doing some consultation work. It would be good money and I don't blame them for taking it.

[–] bappity@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I hope this is the case and they don't try to federate

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

Now that I think about it, Zuck does seem to have that effect on people. Does he actually have a mind-washing beam?

[–] LostCause@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

It‘s called money.

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

Couldn’t agree more!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ElectroVagrant@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Btw for those curious, Meta/FB approaching Mastodon admins is related to their in-development Project92/Threads possible Twitter-successor/competitor.

As it says at the start of the article, the intent is integrate ActivityPub in it in some way. Concerns are being raised for a variety of understandable possibilities some have mentioned here, or sort of alluded to, such as the corporate practice of Embracing, Extending, and Extinguishing. An idea being that Facebook may only be adopting ActivityPub to in some way screw everyone else using it over.

There's also the possibilities of questionable FB moderation practices permitting a flooding of linked instances with unmoderated FB garbage, scraping data (but since most of the fediverse stuff is public they...Don't really need their own public app to do that), and so on.

[–] WiggyJiggyJed@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Upvoted for mentioning EEE. Meta has been really active in facilitating progress in the opensource community lately with their work on LLAMA, so I'm not surprised to hear they are involved elsewhere.

[–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Like much of big tech, they've been open sourcing software for years and EEE is a Microsoft playbook that was mainly used to target competitors, not open source software, from before Facebook even existed. People are parroting it because it's a nice sounding alliteration, but it's a false equivalence that does not apply because we can fork lemmy at any time.

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

Google successfully EEE the internet. They embraced chromium, extended such that they were the main (only) force that determines internet standads, now they extinguish all competition or obstacles in the ad space by setting the rules. This was done through free open source software.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

"Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" might be difficult to make work with Free Software because it can be forked, but that doesn't categorically exclude it from being a strategy companies can try. It's still relevant to warn the community about.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] jorpylaforge@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

sorry to be so direct, but if anyone is parroting anything, it's you with the "they would never do that thing they always do, i'm super reasonable" position. EEE is literally covered in the first leaked Halloween document as a strategy to displace open standards.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents#Documents_I_and_II

this is a strategy microsoft has consistently used for years and continues to use to this day. hell, they are embracing and extending javascript right now with typescript.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] radix@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If it ends up bad for the overall environment of the fediverse, they'll just get defederated. A lot of the folks on Mastadon are getting worked up because the identity of this corner of the internet is decidedly anti-corporate. The thing is, it's just a few clicks for any instance-owner to completely isolate that project.

It could be a big deal (initially), or it could be a giant nothingburger. Or it could be a big deal that eventually turns into a nothingburger. Too soon to say, and way too soon to throw a fit over.

[–] phazed09@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

I'm all for anything that will provide an avenue for people to move off of corporate platforms. The average user doesn't care, but for some of the more tech-savvy FB/Insta/WhatsApp users who join it could be an interesting way to get their feet wet and maybe look to move to alternate platforms without leaving their contact behind completely.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ubergeek77@lemmy.ubergeek77.chat 8 points 1 year ago (9 children)

I heard Facebook was going to make something "built on Mastodon," but I didn't think federation was on the table too. I would think a company wouldn't want open federation, that sounds like a content moderation nightmare.

Likewise, if I ran a Mastodon server, I'd block them immediately. I don't use Facebook for a reason, and anyone who would just blindly let Facebook scoop up their community data is part of the problem.

[–] phazed09@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I posted this on Mastodon, but I completely disagree with the idea of defederating from Meta instances on principal for the same reason I don't want my Fastmail account to stop interacting with Gmail accounts just because I feel Google is too corporate. That defeats the entire purpose of open standards and federated content. I should be able to choose to personally block content from Meta instances if I want to, but it's to the detriment of the community to fracture the Fediverse just because it's starting to grow large enough to attract attention from one of the big tech companies.

The reality is, a federated Meta service would at least initially grow the idea of federated social media as a whole, and likely drive traffic to Kbin/Lemmy/Mastodon from people who want to get off of the Meta platforms, but don't want to cut contact with their friends/coworkers/enemies entirely. While I probably wouldn't make an account, I'd be interested in at least being able to follow a few of my friends who I actually have interest in seeing updates from via my Masto/Kbin accounts.

And I'm aware of the embrace/extend/extinguish paradigm, but premature defederation isn't the answer there either.

I'm an advocate for federated content for convenience, not on principal alone.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] WhoRoger@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I've heard something about it, but I guess Lemmies have been too busy with Reddit and just building up Lemmy communities, so this flew under the radar.

And honestly yea, why should we care? If they wanna make an instance, nobody is stopping them, but I hope nobody will want to federate with them. We've had enough of corporate socials lately.

[–] Fabriek@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The shocking news this week was that a couple of admins of large Mastodon instances were talking with Meta (under NDA's!), so it seems your hope (and mine) will be in vain.

[–] Sunforged@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's really going to be up to the users to push back should the admins get a payout to do something not in the communities interest.

Everyone is going to have to remain nimble and not rely on finding a permanent server until corporations get the message that this is a space that cannot be monetized in a capitalist way.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] charlotte@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's amazing seeing people who, after everything destructive action taken by these large corporations in these settings, still think maybe this time will magically be different and look to a corporation like it's their potential dad who they can't possibly survive let alone thrive without.

[–] LostCause@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Even in here some are like "but we need the corporations".

I certainly don‘t and I‘m fully prepared to go to an instance which stands with me on this. Defederation from all big corporations (small ones are probably impossible to weed out and hopefully less dangerous but should be kept an eye on). If that makes my version of the fediverse smaller, so be it, I like small communities anyway.

They infiltrate these spaces, they take over and "make it better" to lure people, then they centralise and then when people become dependent they enshittify it to sell us, sell our data, sell anything we say and also sell shit to us which we don’t need. All the while condescendingly applying their "codes of conduct" on us to be allowed the privilege to make them money.

I repeat: I don‘t need them. I don‘t want them.

If the majority accept this and my small communities here die too, this will be the last time for me. I‘m just gonna live like a monk in some Austrian forest without internet. All I ever wanted is to talk to some cool people around the world about life and stuff I like.

[–] mcpheeandme@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I feel you completely. I spend most of my free time with my family, hiking or paddling, or reading books. It's nice to have places online to burn some time, but I'd sooner give it up than be forced into some corporate playground. The past 15-20 years have shown that it just doesn't work.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cedarmesa@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] anthoniix@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Honestly, a lot of people might disagree but, corporate involvement is essential to FOSS projects surviving. The biggest FOSS project on the planet, Linux, is literally propped up by the biggest corporations on the planet.

The only potential issue I see here is maybe Meta forks ActivityPub and it becomes a "Meta Project" or some other fuckery. Outside of that I don't see any major issues with it. If we want ActivityPub to become something greater, we're going to need corporations on board. We have strong protections in place right now with a lot of the stuff that's being used being under strong copyleft licenses, and decentralization by nature is going to allow us to opt out of a lot of the ads and tracking that takes place by being forced to use an official app.

[–] cloaker@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My problem is that they will have their own mods, their own communities and their own content. They will flood the federated space with their content and ban people and servers they don't like. It could easily centralise due to the sheer amount of users they bring and you will find it hard to find non Facebook based communities.

[–] rainfern@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

While that is true, I anticipate that as a user you can choose to block all of that, just like I could have a reddit experience without r/conservative and without ads. We will always be able to find our niches, the size of which is determined by how many people share your values.

That being said, it's indeed up to us to make sure the largest communities don't end up on some weird fork that has ads.

[–] gila@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They certainly want to compete with the fediverse with their own fediverse product, and are just approaching ActivityPub to learn as much about their open standard as possible, so that they can adapt it to be proprietary. But even that could work for me if it was still compatible with the fediverse, although they might be defederated from. It could actually be cool if it was defederated like on a protocol level, so that users from all lemmy instances could interact together on meta posts separately from users on meta instances

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] toofarapart@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Given the "anyone can join in" nature of the fediverse, something like this was inevitable. I expected it to be at least be another couple of years, though.

There is potential good for this- a lot more developer resources going into this technology. And being open source software, there's a lot of ways we can potentially mitigate any damage if we have to. But... there's definitely a lot of ways this can go poorly as well.

[–] lycanrising@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

probably an unpopular opinion but facebook does also have a sort of track record of contributing to open source projects in ways that benefit everyone. facebook wanted to use subversion (or some other non-git source control) and contributed significantly so that it would work great for huge repositories like theirs. and facebook use memcached for their caches and contribute heavily so that they can use it more efficiently.

i’m also skeptical about end motivations, but in terms of being able to lend engineering effort to open source projects and helping to create a better product for all, it’s not such a bad idea.

[–] phazed09@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

They're behind React which has become pretty ubiquitous in the frontend dev space too.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Cna@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My [paranoid] take: its vaporware designed to distract from the reddit fiasco, with plans fo mr meta to later absorb reddit instead of a reddit IPO. Reddit users are very different than Twitter users; the mass exodus didn’t happfrom Twitter to Mastodon, but looks very promising from reddit to lemmy/kbin. And it takes only one social media giant to crumble for the rest to follow. Once people are on Fediverse there is no going back

[–] Ghil@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it has absolutely nothing to do with Reddit and everything to do with Twitter.
I think they scrambled to get something up and running quickly so they could get the wave of disgruntled Twitter users and jumpstart a new social media for them, and the only feasible option in 5 months was to use Mastodon/Activitypub to get there.
It will be interesting to see how much they give back to the community and if they federate.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jorpylaforge@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

it's an interesting development that will have a direct impact on lemmy since mastodon and lemmy users can interact with each other.

time will tell how closely they follow microsoft's old "embrace, extend, extinguish" game plan for combatting open standards. who knows? maybe they will be good faith actors in this new space, or won't be able to gain enough user share to truly do nasty stuff.

[–] Dick_Justice@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I have no desire to interact with Facebook via Lemmy. Fuck that idea. And I think it's shady that there's Mastodon admins having secret meetings with Fuckerberg and his cronies and keeping the details secret. I think it's even worse to see Mastodon servers defederating with other servers just because their admins are critical of Meta. I feel bad for all the users who fled to Mastodon just to get away from Big Corporate Social Media just to be shushed and haave their concerns handwaved by their Admin who seems a little starstruck. It all leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.

[–] lysistrata@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

On the one hand, embrace-extend-extinguish is a classic playbook for big evil companies.

  1. Facebook runs a version of mastodon or lemmy or whatever that is actually good
  2. People get on board because it's usable and ostensibly open
  3. Facebook invents features that, sadly, are not possible with ActivityPub (actual private messages come to mind)

On the other hand, it remains to be seen if anyone takes Meta up on a new offering. I'd have complete faith in the future of the open Internet if it was Google trying this.

[–] hiyaaaaa23@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I haven’t really heard that much about this. But I am very skeptical of any claims that Facebook is actually going to fedderate in good faith.

Obviously, it’ll be up to the administrators of the different instances whether to federate or not. So we’ll see

I also wonder how big the overlap is between people who would use a federated platform and those who would willingly use anything made by Facebook.

With that said, I’ll never say never, but I find the likelihood of this taking off to be slim to none

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›