Discussion: Support the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact
For some time, there have been rumors that Meta (Facebook) has plans to impose itself on the Fediverse. These rumors have recently been confirmed, with the news that Meta is developing a clone of Mastodon, referred to as "Project 92", "Barcelona", or "Threads", and that it has had a meeting with the administrators of several large Mastodon instances, possibly including Eugen Rochko, while silencing them with a non-disclosure agreement.
Meta is an oligopoly that has aggressively sought to control social media, through absorption of other social media companies, and through policies of "embrace, extend, and extinguish", as with the RSS and XMPP protocols. Meta, through Facebook, is infamous for condoning the spread of far right ideology and of dangerous misinformation.
There have been calls for pre-emptively blocking Meta's project. In particular, @vantablack@beach.city, administrator of a small Mastodon instance, beach.city, has proposed the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact.
I see our best hope in collective resistance.
Therefore, I would like us to discuss whether we should support this move, and if so, how best to do so. As a starting point for discussion, I suggest the following:
Social.Coop commits to blocking any Fediverse instances that Meta creates.
We, as a body, sign the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact.
We follow up by collectively drafting and issuing a public statement.
(As I have not been active in Social.Coop discussions, I hope that the way I am presenting this is appropriate, and I welcome constructive criticism.)
Shall Social.Coop sign the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact and commit to blocking Meta instances on the Fediverse?
proposal by Brian Vaughan Closed Thu 22 Jun 2023 8:00PM
I apologize for the delay in reporting the outcome of the sence check on signing the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact and committing to blocking Meta instances.
51% voted "Looks good", which is a majority, but just barely. 30% voted "Concerned", 17%, "Not sure yet", and 1% "Undecided". Given that it was such a narrow majority, I would have to say that the course of action I suggested is not sufficiently direct a representation of our collective views on the issue. However, the discussion shows that there is a general concern with Meta, and while there is a range of views on how best to respond, there does seem to be a general sense that we should have a collective response. We are continuing to discuss next steps. Suggestions have included issuing a statement on the matter, possibly using statements from other instances as models, and the possibility of calling for some sort of Assembly of Fediverse instances, using the issue of Meta (and perhaps the Pact) as a starting point for broader organization.
Results
| Results | Option | Votes | % of votes cast | % of eligible voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Looks good | 35 | 51 | 51 |                  | |
| Not sure yet | 12 | 18 | 17 |          | |
| Concerned | 21 | 31 | 30 |                | |
| Not voted | 1 | 1 |  |
I wonder if we should have a discussion about this first before jumping straight to a poll? This is a confusing aspect of Loomio that I think most of us do at some point. That said, I support this.
I would strongly prefer there to be a democratic coalition of instances that collectively makes decisions, like this, that have wider impacts across the entire network, rather than individual instances making this decision on their own.
I would rather we work to set standard practice policies that all federated instances follow and then ask that Meta follow them, rather than preemptively block them. I don't like them, but it's not a great way to go imo.
@Fenn Martyn Regarding the development of standard practice policies, what if we worked toward collectively agreeing not to federate with any instance run by an entity that sells user data to advertising companies or uses user data to build up profiles for advertising purposes?
@Dynamic Good questions! My main issue with the pact as it currently stands is that it's reactionary rather than proactive. Forgive the platitudes, but it declares "what we are not", rather than "what we are." Rather than something that says, "We will not federate with any instance that sells user data to advertisers", why not "We agree to adhere to the following privacy-respecting data practices, and agree to collectively federate only with instances that adhere to the same or reasonably similar practices."?
@Dynamic I agree that a pact is better than nothing, and is a step in the right direction; I'll also admit that I have no idea how a "Council of Instances" or a "United Federation" would work or be funded. I'm no expert in bureaucracy or treatise here.
In my head, the idea is an establishment of an as-needed representative body of instances that comes together periodically to discuss important matters or make decisions collectively. Not an all-the-time organization, but more like a session that meets every now and again when the occasion arises.
A flawed idea, yes. It's just something I think is worth discussing.
@Fenn Martyn Thanks for following up on this. I could be on board with a positively formulated federation policy.
@Fenn Martyn
I'm less convinced on the idea that it would make sense to form a "Council of Instances" over this kind of question (I understand that you acknowledge that it is flawed). Putting together that kind of governing body would be a ton of work and would doubtless be a long, slow process, particularly if this council of instances is meant to also represent democratically run instances such as our own. Burnout is a huge issue on Fedi, and practicality aside, this feels like creating even more work for everybody.
I feel like portable written systems that can be adopted at will work better in this kind of space. That includes things like curated lists of instances to block and (I would argue) shared values pacts such as the Anti-Meta Pact. Whether we sign that particular one or not, I'm having a hard time seeing a better process for democratically sharing ideas across Fediverse instances.
Inspired by the above exchange with @Fenn Martyn, I posted to Mastodon an invitation for folks to think about how they would reword the Anti-Meta Pact to be less company-specific and more positive. Thought I'd include a link here, in case it is of interest to anyone reading this subthread. https://social.coop/@dynamic/110579677650355358
In general I think assuming good will (and well-intentioned, honest following of rules) in the fediverse is the best policy...unless one is confronted by a someone with a proven record of being very good at succeeding through being dishonest, predatory and manipulative like Meta. Fukkem.
@rich jensen That's an interesting question. Part of my thinking in what I wrote above was that there's an immediate issue with Meta I'd like to see us respond to, but I also think we should also take a breath and come up with a more thorough general position, and it makes sense to articulate why, exactly, Meta is of particular concern. I'd say it's for reasons that are not unique to Meta; I described it as an oligopoly, and there are several other oligopolies that could potentially threaten the Fediverse in similar ways. Google, Microsoft, and Apple have each made power plays in social media, and there are doubtless smaller corporations that could do significant harm. I wouldn't be particularly happy if an oil company, for instance, made a big show of establishing a presence on the Fediverse, but I also wouldn't see it as an extraordinary threat, because oil companies aren't organized around predating on Internet communications.
Agreed that a step like this deserves significant discussion. I also think Fenn's spot on saying we need more than single instances defederating. If we're serious about trying to build a countervailing power to Facebook/meta, let's talk about what that would look like.
Otherwise, if we're defederating just to protect users, I think it makes sense to wait and see what the negative impacts on user experience will actually be.
I'm happy to see this conversation starting. I do think it needs to go through more process and maybe a larger (beyond our instance) collaboration regarding design. What if we collaborated (for instance) beyond Mastodon with the Reddit mods on strike right now? Can we imagine more linkages and grow a movement greater than the single-minded linear structure of domination? Otherwise the big corps will just keep picking us off one by one by one by....
I summarize my (personal, loosely held) take here https://social.coop/@loppear/110573646486291372 without expecting this to keep them out of my data or out of the fedi generally.
I agree that Meta, Twitter, etc. are predatory and Borg-like in the way they endeavor to absorb their competition. Theoretically, the Fediverse should be resistant to this kind of behaviour, but I suspect it isn't Meta-proof. I tend to agree with @Fenn Martyn.
The rewording is enough for me to change my vote, but there should be a way that a blocked instance could agree to abide by a set of principles for them to be unblocked.
@Andrew Shead "I will not sacrifice the Fediverse. We've made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!"
@Fenn Martyn: I agree with you, but I think we need strategy instead of rapid response. Overall, this discussion is a good start.
@Andrew Shead Oh, apologies. I wasn't advocating for a rapid response; you just mentioned the Borg so I thought I'd quote Picard 😅
This seems to be an anti-Meta proposal. I'm with @richjensen in asking if there are "underlying principles that might set criteria for taking such action against other actors?"
I'm looking for general priniciples beyond "I don't like this entity for this and that reason". That said, I don't like Meta for nearly every reason stated in this conversation.
Two principles that I see in the sense check are:
Opposition to entities that condone the spread of anti-democratic ideologies
Opposition to the spread of dangerous misinformation (dangerous needs to be defined)
@Scott McGerik
I like it, and we can keep forward on that path on a very positive way.
We will federate with anyone who:
supports diversity and respectful dialog,
doesn't allow any type of discrimination based on any personal characteristics (origin, sexual preferences, skin tone, etc.).
guards and takes care about the personal and private information of the people in it's instance.
-
etc.
All these values are written and should be signed by the person/s responsible for the instance/s (somehow identified, at least as an account responsible in the instance). Those signatures creates a "white list" of instances that federate that can be automatically added to all those who already signed it before.
(sorry the lousy writing, English is not my native language and I'm extremely tired, but didn't wanted to leave this for the last moment).
I'm not entirely on board yet. This could be a bridge to bring more Meta users onto the metaverse, if there was a simple way to transfer to another host. I haven't had a FB account in 10+ years, so definitely not a Meta fan,.
@Nithin Coca ncoca As I recall from switching instances to social.coop, the transfer required configuration on both ends. Meta could simply refuse to support that, or support it initially and later stop supporting it. Part of my concern is my memory of how Facebook, and Google, treated XMPP, in the classic example of "embrace, extend, extinguish". Both, initially, used XMPP as the basis for their chat clients, and supported federation with other XMPP servers. (Some computer games did this as well.) This meant that you could use your preferred client on your preferred server, and still communicate with Facebook and Google members. Later, Facebook and Google added unique features to their proprietary chat services, making federation more complicated and less reliable. Later, they fully de-federated. This was a major blow to XMPP, which had been rapidly growing in usage.
@Brian Vaughan This is a valuable historical example of the hazard. Thanks for articulating it. You are helping to persuade me toward taking FAANG / MAANA's persistent strategic attacks on the digital commons into account. I would probably support formation of a 'defederate-first' negotiating coalition with a specific set of demands FAANG-like entities would have to meet.
On another tangent, given the history of demonstrable damage. I wonder if there is any reparations provision that might be offered as a demand?
My fear is that through repressive tolerance Meta and others will leave us alone as they colonize the fediverse, enclosing open spaces just as they have done throughout the existence of GAFAM.
I’m open to discussion on this subject but I’m not at this point convinced Meta joining the Fediverse would be definitively bad and if it meant more of my friends joining the Fediverse, I’d struggle to be happy blocking them all.
The Fediverse is meant to be open. We need to live these values. If Meta behaves inappropriately, then certainly ban them, but let's wait and see. Let's be the positive roles modes, even with instances we don't agree with.
I don't think blocking proactively will help.
Meta can get our data if they want anyway. This is an open social network.
If meta brings 1B+ users to fedi, there will be people we'll want to interact with. As long as meta behaves positively by respecting the standards of activitypub, allowing true positive interaction, we should allow it. If they start deviating from the standard in an EEE move, then we can de federate them. This could be a policy that applies generally, not just for meta.
With all due respect to the folks saying similar things (in the comments here and on Fedi), "let's wait to see what harm they do" seems like a stance that will only serve to allow harm to be inflicted that would otherwise be avoided by acting proactively.
Wait and see.
This seems a variation of the general defederation question.
We should set conditions in the manner of https://joinmastodon.org/covenant , specifically imo user portability. A blanket ban based on one leaked screenshot is not a proportional response.
As a reminder this same company maintains react.js.
I agree any response should be a cross-instance federated response, and I also think this should be for discussion not for a decision immediately.
You know the arguments.
I don't think preemptively blocking is the right strategy as we don't know what it will actually look like. It may well be that their policies and behaviour give us cause to block them in time (far right nonsense etc.). I think we should still give them a chance as it does provide a route to bringing many more people into the fediverse. I expect we would end up blocking them within weeks following our normal policies but should let that evidence and process run as normal.
I think it is madness to support this now.
I too have concerns about Meta's possible entry into the fediverse.
But I can also see huge opportunities. This could the moment that the fediverse breaks through.
We don't know what Meta will actually do - all we have seen is a few leaked slides.
Let us wait and make decisions based on knowledge, not speculation. Let the situation mature. We can always decide to defederate if that's required.
Preemptive block, and change mind later == informed opt-in
Laissez faire, and block later == opt-out
People point to the possible opportunities that a Meta entry offers, and waiting with action. That constitutes an opt-out. I vote for blocking outright. If there happen to be opportunities, then a re-vote might see Social Co-op opening to them and that'd constitute opting in, on an informed basis.
@Arnold Schrijver I've moved to this position more or less and will change my vote.
@Arnold Schrijver I can see the reason for preemptively blocking if blocking later could be “too late”.
But what is lost with a “wait and see” approach? What opportunity to combat predatory data tactics, and all the other things Meta is known for, so we lose by waiting - or at least waiting until we know their intentions.
@Bjorn Toft Madsen Hi Bjorn, you ask what is lost by a "wait and see" approach? I have been reading through the comments and from where I stand I see the existential risk of an "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy employed by big tech to kill open protocols a reason to not "wait and see". See this loomio comment for an example of how the strategy has been used.
I'd say giving Meta any time to use the benefits of a connection to the established fediverse to advertise their server to their facebook, instagram, and whatsapp users who do not have fediverse accounts currently, would hurt our chances (albeit only slightly if we only waited weeks) at keeping Meta from ending the openness of the fediverse. If we waited months or years, that could be enough time for Meta to establish itself,become the center of the fediverse (so to speak), defederate, and make us all decided if we want to join their walled garden.
Given that it was over a month ago since you commented, and a lot has happened that I'm slowly catching up on, can you say if what your position on this topic is currently?
@Matt S - matts I still broadly feel the same - although I could accept limiting our federation with Threads.
That said, Threads hasn’t even started supporting AvtivityPub and I’m doubtful they ever will. I still feel it’s too early to make decisions. I’m not arguing that we wait years either, just that the particular details over how Threads will federate with others will have a large bearing over whether we should defederate. I think waiting till at least Meta’s intentions for federation is clear would be a much wiser action. We are talking about imagined ghosts right now.
@Bjorn Toft Madsen Thanks for sharing!
Perhaps provisionally block Meta, pending formation of the coalition that Fenn suggests.
If Facebook is going to develop this Fediverse interop feature with the same velocity as they've been working on VR, then we've still got years before they'll deliver anything meaningful. So I'd say there's no need yet to rush to a decision.
From what I understand blocking Meta (and we're assuming they're actually going to federate rather than BlueSky their infrastructure) won't actually stop them hoovering up data which seems to be the major (and justifiable as they can't be trusted after Shadow Profiles, Myanmar, and Cambridge Analytica) concern. Although I'm happy to be proven wrong as I might not fully understand AP.
However, I think we need a more formalised and solid policy for not just Meta but any similar player.
I enthusiastically support this proposal. I see that a fair number of people are concerned, and I therefore support discussion, but for me it is a very easy decision to support this.
Definitely needs further discussion. Signing petitions on a one-off basis per company is not the way to go . Instead, we should come up with criteria. Like "We vow to de-federate instances that 1) Do not allow account and data export/migration, 2) Support the Right to be Forgotten / deletion, 3) Respect #norobots and similar permissions mechanisms, 4) ..."
@Dmitri Z.The current pact language is Meta specific. I agree it is not ideal but I think Meta's history justifies joining an emergency, pre-emptive response. As others have suggested, I believe social.coop should support the formation of a community of concern while drafting more general policy positions and demands.
@Fenn Martyn, I am a little confused by the way you start your post. Individual instances joining together to sign a pact seems like a pretty good mechanism for instances to act as a democratic coalition. What system would you envision that would make you feel better?