Everywhere I look there are people advocating for defederation from this and that! Do you even understand what you're suggesting? Do you get what's the point of decentralized social media and activity pub?

This is supposed to be free and accessible for everyone. We all have brains and can decide who to interact with.

If meta or any other company manages to create a better product it's just natural that people tend to use it. I won't use it, you may not use it and it's totally fine! It's about having options. Also as Mastodon's CEO pointed out there's no privacy concern, everything stays on your instance.

Edit: after reading and responding to many comments, I should point out that I'm not against defederation in general. It's a great feature if used properly. Problem is General Instances with open sign-ups and tens of thousands of users making decisions on par of users and deciding what they can and can not see.

If you have a niche or small community with shared and agreed upon values, defederating can be great. But I believe individual users are intelligent enough to choose.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

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

Great point. I get this threat, but do you think closing off would help this? I don't believe anyone that respects privacy (the type of user that currently uses federated social media) would join meta's instance. But by defederating, you're forcing everyone with friends outside this privacy-conscious circle to join meta, and overtime find themselves using it more and more, since it's more convenient and frankly way more users are there!

By not defederating, you're giving everyone the option to stay here and have privacy while being able to interact with all their friends, and maybe even convince some of their friends to join! (you would be able to convince them since the underlying protocol is literally the same, but they will gain privacy and won't see ads, I'd say that's compelling!)

[–] yarn@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You say you understand my point about the threat of Meta consuming the entirety of the fediverse, but then you talk about privacy, which is completely irrelevant to my point. What does privacy matter when Meta gains 95% share of the fediverse communities and then closes them off to only Threads users? In that situation, your privacy is completely gone. You have to join Threads to get back in to the old fediverse that Meta took away.

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

If you pay attention to my response, I've said that if you close them now, considering how many users they've amassed in like 1 day you would have to join threads (at least the average user will). And when you see the convenience there, you will use Fediverse less and less, so what's the point?

What I mean by understanding your point is that you're right, that's a threat, but I believe what I've just said is also a scenario. This is a dilemma.

[–] yarn@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If you pay attention to my response, I've said that if you close them now, considering how many users they've amassed in like 1 day you would have to join threads

Yeah, that's what the defederaters are advocating. You can't mix Meta with the fediverse, because Meta will consume it. So if you want to participate in Threads, then you have to join Threads.

Assuming the collective fediverse goes through with defederating from Meta, then there's nothing stopping anybody from creating their own little niche in the fediverse that remains federated with Meta. I wouldn't argue against that.