Discussion: Support the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact

On other, slower less frantic angle, I was wondering on why it this issue about our relationship with Threads from Facebook/Meta (Fb/Mt) is taking so much debate.

And remembered that many times and in varied contexts, when I saw people discussing without end the issue it is not really about what they are discussing, but because of something prior that it is not clear, or expressed, or shared.

In this case, I believe that we are mixing different aspects of the same issue, and discussing on all them without pointing to each one. It is like discussing a treatment without clarifying the diagnostic first. The most probable outcome is not getting to any clear agreement about what to do (this is, the treatment).

So let's take a couple steps back in order to try to see farther..

A working hypothesis for this conundrum is that we have -at least- 2 dimensions we are talking about:

1. the ethical,

2. the pragmatic.

The ethical dimension is based on the fact that Fb/Mt had demonstrated along many years that it plays only for itself and without any valid or agreed rule/s or care except maximizing the money it can get away with. This implies that, if Fb/Mt was a person, it could only be described as a sociopath. Not only no one want's to have to deal with such a person, but in this case it is much worst since it is a multi billion powerful corporation so it is extra difficult to make it behave well. And since we (social.coop) are a group about collaboration and common good, then the ethical dimension calls for a total cut of any relationship, just as what was done with Gab. Simple, clear, and (hopefully) done.

The pragmatic dimension is way more complicated. It does include many points that have already been pointed in the previous discussions. Some are potentially very positive (like people knowing the real Fediverse) and others very negative (as a huge influx of unmoderated posts from people with an explicit opposite view of our values at Social.Coop, exposing personal information that will be appropriated and sold without consent, etc.).

While I have my own opinion about the probabilities and relative weights of both positive and negative sides, this is completely irrelevant here and will leave my personal opinions out in order to help to work on this meta-discussion.

The important thing we need to see is that both views calls for completely different ways of dealing with them:

• as a common good oriented, commons creating infrastructure cooperative the ethical one is crystal clear, we cannot tolerate Fb/Mt as we didn't tolerate Gab. No discussion, or we have to discuss Gab and fediblock again.

• as a communication service provider for our community and Fediverse promoter cooperative the pragmatic one calls for an evaluation of all the points (both pros and cons) regarding their potential/estimated impact in our mission and a careful weighting of each and the whole pack before taking a decision.

To make this even funnier, we have also a time-bound decision: Thread is here, but still doesn't federate. But it does create a time limit that it is coming shorter by the day.

These are only some half baked thoughts, but there is some very experienced people in this wonderful community that I'm hopeful can use this idea to help to redirect or reframe the whole discussion in a positive, more constructive way so we can evaluate proposals and consent one.

WDYT?

Warmest regards...

@Eduardo Mercovich

as a common good oriented, commons creating infrastructure cooperative the ethical one is crystal clear, we cannot tolerate Fb/Mt as we didn't tolerate Gab. No discussion, or we have to discuss Gab and fediblock again.

I think this is an interesting but imperfect analogy. Gab was a bad actor because its users were largely bad actors and it represented them. Meta is a bad actor, but more because of its extractive practices than because of its userbase.

So, does the proposed solution address the harm? Defederation solved the Gab problem because people wanted to avoid neonazis showing up in their feed. I'm not certain that defederation would solve the Meta problem, because many of us post publically.

@Derek Caelin

It strikes me as a bit strange to say that defederation doesn't solve the surveillance problem "because many of us post publically." Some of us don't always post publicly, and that should be taken into account. I, for example, have started to use followers-only posts in many of my threads in order to decrease the chance of my content being harvested for generative AI.

That said, as I've been asking more questions about how the protocol works, some of my initial concerns have been allayed. In particular, if the responses to this thread (https://infosec.exchange/@varx/110738362126288399) are correct, then followers-only posts by idle accounts that have left automatic following turned on will not be laid bare to Threads.net the moment that federation occurs, which has been my major pragmatic concern.

In terms of surveillance capitalism, it seems that the posts that we need to be concerned about are those that meet all of the following considerations:

• Followers only

• Posted after the moment of federation with Threads.net

• By users who haven't individually blocked Threads.net

• By users who wouldn't want their data slurped up by Threads.net

• By a user who either

  • 1) doesn't screen follows at all

  • 2) doesn't screen follows closely enough to notice what domain the follow request is coming from, or

  • 3) slipped up one time and accidentally approved a follow-request from someone on Threads.net even if they intended not to

That might be a vanishingly small number of posts, although it's hard to know for sure. Point #3 on the final major bullet seems like the biggest concern to me (again, from a surveillance capitalism standpoint; there are other concerns). To the extent that this is a concern, I think that a technological solution (if it is administratively possible) would be if there were a way that the admins could automatically set up Threads.net as "blocked" by every individual user, so that the federated experience would be opt-in rather than opt-out.

@Derek Caelin

Meta is a bad actor, but more because of its extractive practices than because of its userbase.

I wish it would be only that. But, sorry, not only... it's business of selling people info is based on engagement, and that is very much (although not only) based on hate. So their business thrives on hate. They welcome nazis, fascists and all kind of extremists because it is good for it's business. Of course, not all of it's users are like Gab, but they allow them to thrive there.

This has been proven once and again in the last 10 or 15 years, so it doesn't make sense to discuss it again here. So Meta is a bad actor for many (and very) serious reasons, not only because of their extractive practices.

Based on that fact and that it's values happen to be (very much) outside my range of consent, is that I put it in the same bucket as Gab.

PD: edited typo.

@Dynamic

Some of us don't always post publicly, and that should be taken into account. I, for example, have started to use followers-only posts in many of my threads in order to decrease the chance of my content being harvested for generative AI.

That's a fair point.

@Eduardo Mercovich Mastodon is supposedly GDPR compliant. If it is GDPR compliant, Meta would not be able to sell your information. Additionally, because of how GDPR works, Meta's solution to geoblock Thread outside the US still requires them to enforce GDPR for EU+UK citizens in the US (called "extraterritorial scope") since it's tied to Instagram which does business outside the US.

Thread or not, I personally have some GDPR concerns with Mastodon.

Further reading on GDRP and Mastodon: https://github.com/clening/MastodonPrivacyGuide

@Dynamic

To the extent that this is a concern, I think that a technological solution (if it is administratively possible) would be if there were a way that the admins could automatically set up Threads.net as "blocked" by every individual user, so that the federated experience would be opt-in rather than opt-out.

Does the Limit feature accomplish this?

@Matt S - matts

The documentation on https://docs.joinmastodon.org/admin/moderation/ is very unclear on this point, stating only that Limit does not affect federation.

@Derek Caelin I think that this analogy to Gab is perfect, there is a huge number of outspoken bigots on both Facebook and Threads.

@Eduardo Mercovich

Adding to your "practical" list there's a second tier question about what kind of users we as social.coop want to serve. I think a big part of what is making this process so painful is that our membership currently includes users with strongly contrasting expectations of what services social.coop should provide. I think there are more than two sets of categories of expectations, but two important categories are:

1. Users who see social.coop and the parts of the fediverse that are aligned with our values as a community existing outside of the corporate internet, and who see social.coop as having a responsibility to maintaining the integrity of that community

2. Users who see social.coop as a communication tool that---while itself being non-corporate---should be as inclusive or exclusive as the individual user wishes, including the option of communicating with people on the corporate internet.

Up until now, the corporate internet has had no presence to speak of on Activity Pub, and both of these sets of users could easily be served with no problems. As the landscape is changing, and we are deciding how to proceed, there is an implicit statement to one or the other of these groups of users that "We will no longer provide the service you are looking for. Go elsewhere." That's bound to create some feelings of hurt.

@Eduardo Mercovich

As we make decisions about how to moderate the corporate internet, to federate or not, to limit or not, we are also making choices about what kinds of users social.coop will attract. If we federate, many of our anti-federation people will leave and we will also become more inviting to future prospective members who want broad reach, including people who love the idea of using the fediverse to keep up with family and acquaintances. If we defederate, many of our pro-federation people will leave, and we will also become more inviting to future prospective members who are looking for shelter from the storm of the corporate internet.

Either way, the future composition of social.coop membership changes.

@Eduardo Mercovich

This is a little bit harsh to say, but I think it's important: Because our decision on the Threads.net question is expected to change the composition of our community, it should also be expected to change the results of future decisions that we make as a community.

This is the biggest reason why I would seriously consider leaving if we decide to handle surveillance capitalist instances the same way that we handle regular instances. Others might have similar feelings in the opposite direction.

@Eduardo Mercovich

The thinking I provide above is a major motivator for the question I raised about whether we could be two instances or communities (https://www.loomio.com/d/m4hc80Tn/could-we-be-two-instances-communities-). If such a thing were possible, it might be a path forward that would allow us to serve the maximum number of our current members (although it might be that members trying to take a principled stand that social.coop should sever any possible ties with Meta would find this outcome unsatisfying and might leave anyway).

@Dynamic this is a very important point. We appear to be at a crossroads.

@Derek Caelin

Thank you for this feedback.

(I think you are one of the first social.coop people that I followed, back when I was on cybre.space, and it has been interesting to me seeing how you and I have come down in somewhat different places on this issue.)

📖 https://www.wired.com/story/metas-threads-could-make-or-break-the-fediverse/

@Ed Summers

That divide reflects different visions for the Fediverse’s future. One involves embracing Threads to bootstrap the network’s stagnant growth.

Ok, ok, hands up everyone whose reason for supporting federation with Threads.net is to "bootstrap the network's stagnant growth".

Hi all!

I'm the Community Working Group oncall this week. A member reached out wondering why/how Social.coop ended up showing up as signatory in:

• https://fedipact.veganism.social/

• https://fedipact.online/

And I came to this thread to try to understand the associated outcomes. As of now I'm a bit confused (partly because of how threaded Loomio discussion works) :) So I'd like to begin with a pulsecheck, if you are willing:

• As a participant in this discussion or a member of Social.coop: are you surprised that Social.coop now shows up as signatory?

• Do you have any further thoughts on this matter?

I also started an informal poll over at https://social.coop/@flancian/111670500999654865 -- of course that can be voted on by anyone, though, so it should be taken more as a pulse check for both the Social.coop community and our social graphs (where it is most likely to be seen).

Furthermore: my current understanding is that https://www.loomio.com/d/AZcJK6y2/discussion-support-the-anti-meta-fedi-pact/344 passed/was adopted, and because of that the CWG is supposed to limit Threads -- but that does not seem to be the same as 'fully defederating with them'. So in that sense this outcome seems to contradict our showing up as signatories?

@Flancian I am surprised to see social.coop on the list with “fedipact” status. This status would mean complete defederation, and limiting is not that.

@Sieva yes, I agree; this has come up more recently as reported and discussed in the Matrix open room (https://matrix.to/#/#SocialCoop:matrix.org).

We probably want to align and either un-sign or commit to defederating?

@Flancian Since committing to defederating seems unlikely in the short term, it seems we should ask them to unsign. Who is in contact with the pact folks? Will somebody volunteer to reach out?

Seems like we should just notify the maintainers of those lists that we voted to limit threads.net (and have done so, limited it, that is).

That's my understanding. As I recall, we would have voted on supporting the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact as a follow-up question, if and only if we voted to pre-emptively block Threads.