Embrace, Extend, and Exploit: Meta's plan for ActivityPub, Mastodon and the fediverse
Embrace, Extend, and Exploit: Meta's plan for ActivityPub, Mastodon and the fediverse
What's Meta up to?
-
Embrace ActivityPub, , Mastodon, and the fediverse
-
Extend ActivityPub, Mastodon, and the fediverse with a very-usable app that provides additional functionality (initially the ability to follow everybody you're following on Instagram, and to communicate with all Threads users) that isn't available to the rest of the fediverse – as well over time providing additional services and introducing incompatibilities and non-standard improvements to the protocol
-
Exploit ActivityPub, Mastodon, and the fediverse by utilizing them for profit – and also using them selfishly for Meta's own ends
Since the fediverse is so much smaller than Threads, the most obvious ways of exploiting it – such as stealing market share by getting people currently in the fediverse to move to Threads – aren't going to work. But exploitation is one of Meta's core competences, and once you start to look at it with that lens, it's easy to see some of the ways even their initial announcement and tiny first steps are exploiting the fediverse: making Threads feel like a more compelling platform, and reshaping regulation. Longer term, it's a great opportunity for Meta to explore – and maybe invest in – shifting their business model to decentralized surveillance capitalism.
As if Meta could give a flying fart about activitypub as competition. They could not care any less if someone gave them money to care less.
I feel fairly confident in saying that the only reason they're integrating federation is so that it won't work because we all defederate them, this is beneficial to them because it means we cannot talk family members and friends onto Mastodon, they want to connect to their friends being on Threads. However, this pre-empts any EU legislation forcing them to be interoperable. They are, "can't help it if the other side is not interoperating despite having the ability to do so".
Maybe some of that but my sense is that given how prescient FB has been on buying companies that grew to become staples, like WhatsApp and Instagram I would say what they're seeing here is something like the future of social media - even if tiny.
Unfortunately they can't buy it, but they can do the next best thing: position themselves to take advantage of it, while in its infancy, and if possible control it while they can still throw their weight about before it takes off independently.
given how prescient FB has been on buying companies that grew to become staples, like WhatsApp and Instagram
- Whatsapp was bought for 19 bil, at a time when it was #3 in the US and dominant in major parts of the world. It's buying it about 5 years too late to be "prescient" about it.
- Instagram was a better deal, but far from "buying it before it grows big". bought for 1 bil two years after it launched it was already well on track for 20 million users. If they had bought it a year earlier they would have gotten it really cheap, granted. They bought it right after it exploded.
Now, I'm not saying Facebook wouldn't love to buy competitors, but the examples are kinda weird, in particular WhatsApp. Plus again, the fediverse is so tiny the only reason someone at Facebook probably knows about it is because a lawyer told them to tell 3 engineers to get this done, by which point they didn't even read the wikipedia and just told them to do it because legal says they should.
WhatsApp had 500 million MAU when it was bought up.
That's 250x the fediverse.
They really don't care.
Yeah, it's been hilarious watching the fediverse think Meta gives a rat's ass about either reaching them with content or getting access to their horde of memes.
This is about preempting regulation.
Meta would love nothing less than having their interoperability push still end up as a walled garden, and if I didn't know better regarding their total disinterest about Lemmy or even Mastodon existing, would even suspect that the degree to which they'd be meddling in the conversion would be creating posts about how people should be irrationally upset and defederate from Threads.
Though they don't care enough to be involved in the conversation at all, and know full well that the fediverse will hit scaling issues should it ever miraculously gain traction long before it is actually a threat in any way to their market dominance.
All that said, it's still pretty hilarious to watch the inflated self-importance and slight paranoia that goes with it leading to bitter debates like this though.
The OP talks about how Meta can get a lot of what they want -- including the regulatory aspects -- just by saying they'll integrate with the fediverse, and it's quite possible that's all they'll ever do. But there's a big potential upside for them if they decided to invest in it ... not so much today's fediverse (I agree about the inflated self-importance of a lot of the commentary -- no, they're not so desperate for content that they're trying to steal it from the fediverse) but the potential of decentralized surveillance capitalism. So, we shall see.
What happened to the "extinguish" step?
I think it's important to include that. Threads isn't going to just happily coexist.
You should really read the article.....
Indeed! But here's the relevant excerpt
Of course, if and when Meta sees the fediverse as a significant threat, they'll ruthlessly stamp it out.0
But right now, they've got a huge potential longer-term opportunity to coopt the fediverse as a basis for decentralized surveillance capitalism. It might not work out, of course, but keeping a neutered fediverse around might still be useful to Meta as long as it's not a threat to their dominance (just as Google subsidizes the Firefox browser).
And in the short term, there's money to be made – and regulators to try to influence – by exploiting the fediverse.
there isnt one, because even the 'extend' in this hyperbolic scenario isnt real
o0o0o0 the big 'extend' is threads users will get to use the threads app. puhlease. thats no extension of AP
everyones getting their sphincter tight over their own hate and nothing more.
The original sense of EEE's extend was pushing features that were not standard (to IE). An example would be for example if Threads implemented a stickers function that only worked in the Threads apps but to us only appeared as . Any features built around AP that worsens the experience for others can be seen as "extend".
Ugh, at least they mention regulation and acknowledge XMPP still exists but this is one of the worst of these panicked scare pieces I've read yet. It's filled with bad faith interpretation of quotes, poor analysis, and baseless speculation. The motto of all of these articles seems to be "if I can dream up a way to be scared of it, it must be true!"
How do you dismissively call Evan Podromou a "fediverse influencer"?! He's one of the fucking co-authors of ActivityPub.
Their treatment of these two Mosseri quotes is just bad faith, fever swamp nonsense:
“I think we might be a more compelling platform for creators, particularly for the newer creators who are more and more savvy, if we are a place where you don’t have to feel like you have to trust us forever.”
"Eventually, it should also be possible to enable creators to leave Threads and take their followers with them to another app/server."
They conclude that their (obvious!) goal is to be completely untrustworthy while giving people the false belief that they're trustworthy. And the evidence? It's all in the quote! He used the word "feel" and that can only mean a covert declaration of opposite day.
Same with the second quote. It's "already clear that people won't be able to move all their followers to other fediverse servers." Why? It's implied that the use of the word "eventually" means never (it doesn't. look it up.). Does it matter that the quote is from a post talking about their gradual implementation of ActivityPub? Does it matter that moving accounts would logically occur near the end of that timeline? Of course not! We're playing a game where we take a quote and manipulate it until it gives us whatever meaning we want. The other piece of evidence is that they haven't decided whether federation will be opt-in or opt-out, which has nothing to do with moving your account. Make no mistake though, it is CLEAR that those quotes mean the opposite of what they say.
This is what the first quote means: 'we can build legitimate trust by not locking people into our platform.' Does that mean they won't lock people in? No. But that quote isn't evidence they won't. Pretending that it is is tinfoil-hat bullshit.
Put the current fediverse to the side, and imagine a future of decentralized surveillance capitalism, where "Meta's fediverse" filled with instances run by brands, politicians, celebrities, influencers, and non-profits – all doing harvesting data on Meta's behalf
What a fucking nightmare that would be. Herd a bunch of crazy cats you don't control for a rat's nest of data without a simple way to use it to target ad deliveries (which is how they ultimately make money). Trusting someone like Alex Jones with the core of their business model? Riiiiight. And if they did it? So what? It would have no impact on Mastodon or the larger Fediverse. Even if Ron DeSantis had his own Meta-sponsored instance, everyone could just block it. I also fail to see how being in a direct business relationship with those people severs their connection. It's a much stronger connection than them just having an account on their platform. And it just reintroduces the moderation problem this is claimed to solve. Public pressure would just shift from "ban user" to "block instance," losing them the data and revenue anyway.
Thanks for the feedback! You really don't think Evan's influential in the fediverse?
They conclude that their (obvious!) goal is to be completely untrustworthy while giving people the false belief that they’re trustworthy. And the evidence? It’s all in the quote!
No, I'm not saying their goal is to be completely untrustworthy. It's a means to an end. And the evidence for them being completely untrustworthy isn't the quote, it's Facebook, Instagram, and Meta's long history of being completely untrustworthy. I wrote about this in Wait a second. Why should anybody trust Facebook, Instagram, or Meta?. Do you trust them?
It’s “already clear that people won’t be able to move all their followers to other fediverse servers.” Why?
Good question, I edited the article to clarify:
if somebody's following you on Threads but hasn't opted in to federation, then when you move to an instance in the real fediverse they won't be following you any more.
Trusting someone like Alex Jones with the core of their business model? Riiiiight.
Yeah really, it's not like they every trusted Steve Bannon and Cambridge Analytica ... oh wait, they did.
Anyhow it's not the core of their business model. The core of their business model is harvesting data and using it to sell and target ads (and sell other stuff), Alex Jones is just one more channel to leverage.
Even if Ron DeSantis had his own Meta-sponsored instance, everyone could just block it.
You really think most Republicans would block it?
Firstly, I didn't realize this was your article. This is probably a good reminder that every article is someone's article. I wish my tone and wording had been a bit less caustic, so apologies for being a bit of a dick in my comment and thanks for your thoughtful reply.
I think Evan's influential, but it seems dismissive to call him an "influencer" without acknowledging his relationship to the Fediverse. His influence is earned, but the term often carries a negative connotation and is occasionally used as a pejorative. Although based on your reply, that doesn't seem like it was your intention.
No, I’m not saying their goal is to be completely untrustworthy. It’s a means to an end. And the evidence for them being completely untrustworthy isn’t the quote, it’s Facebook, Instagram, and Meta’s long history of being completely untrustworthy. I wrote about this in Wait a second. Why should anybody trust Facebook, Instagram, or Meta?. Do you trust them?
I think the story of their public statements is that they've said everything you'd hope to hear. I've seen many takes that they somehow betray a hidden agenda, and that seems wrong at the very least. They undoubtedly have a bad past. Contrasting those statements with their history is obviously valid, as is analyzing them in relation to their business interests. Being skeptical or suspicious of their motivations is understandable. If they had the purest of intentions, the quotes would be the same though.
Do I trust Meta? No! I don't use their platforms because I don't trust them. I have an old Facebook account I don't use, but would treat as the white pages if I ever did. And I have an extension to trap them in a sandbox if that need ever arises. I left Instagram for Pixelfed, and I'm exclusively on the Fediverse. I have no intention of leaving for any for-profit service. I don't think I have to trust them or that they have to be trustworthy to their users to keep them from destroying the Fediverse though. I think the worst case is that we end up exactly where we are now, which is fine. I'm happy here now!
Good question, I edited the article to clarify:
I completely agree that it could cause problems with moving your account if the default is opt-in. I think it's also important to note that they've only said that they're not sure what the default will be. That could be bad intentions, but it could also be for good faith reasons. For example, it could just be concern about their users. I doubt they haven't noticed the civil war that breaks out here every time there's an announcement about Threads. I wouldn't be surprised if they're waiting to see whether their users experience a tidal wave of harassment from this side. I also wouldn't be surprised if they did. On our side, it wouldn't surprise me if many admins end up defederating because it's just too much work to moderate content from the Threads side even if they don't have bad intentions.
Yeah really, it’s not like they every trusted Steve Bannon and Cambridge Analytica … oh wait, they did.
That's apples and oranges though. They gave them data Meta had collected. The Meta-Fediverse would have them directly responsible for data collection. So they would need to admin those instances or trust that the admins wouldn't tamper with that data. If the data were tampered with, it could seriously damage their core business model. It would poison their user tracking and they'd be less able to sell (the myth of) surgical market segmentation. It seems far less risky to be a good actor in the Fediverse to keep regulators off their back and continue to harvest vast quantities of granular tracking data from their own server. That seems especially true in light of Cambridge Analytica where they were savaged internationally for being unbelievably reckless and irresponsible with the data they held.
Even if there are numerous instances collecting data for them, they could still only get publicly available data from non-Threads Fediverse users. If they do want that, setting up an instance is way more inefficient and expensive than just scraping it from servers.
You really think most Republicans would block it?
No, but I don't think that puts us in a different place than we are now. There are "free speech" instances that don't defederate for any reason. They can't force you to see or engage with anything and will never be able to. We're not really surrendering any control to them.
Their goal is to be profitable. Whether that means embracing standards for good PR or fighting standards if it benefits them, it doesn’t matter. Money matters.
I think that Facebook is trying to kill the Fediverse and Twitter, before either becomes a real competitor.
It makes sense when you look at the big picture; Facebook's power is mostly Facebook itself (connecting people), Instagram (sharing pictures), and WhatsApp ("private" [eh] messaging). Microblogging has a small market in comparison with those three, but it opens a door to them - so both the Fediverse and Twitter have room to expand right into FB's turf.
So in the case of the Fediverse, if my reasoning is correct (dunno), the third "E" would be the traditional "extinguish", not "exploit" as proposed in the OP.
Idk as long as Meta services keep forcing you to sign up for an account to view anything of value I’d imagine a lot of people will look for alternatives elsewhere.
Nothing more annoying than trying to look at the menu for a local restaurant/business page for a local business and seeing “sign up for Facebook to view this page.” Much of the utility for any kind of discussion or shared info online (imo) lies in the ability to access it quickly via search and without being forced to login.
as long as Meta services keep forcing you to sign up for an account to view anything of value
Threads doesn't do that, and won't be able to if it wants to support ActivityPub federation.
None of those things sounds inherently bad to me.
They might not be inherently bad, but they'll be likely bad depending on how it's done, and Facebook isn't to be trusted.
Just for the sake of example:
- What if Threads develops features that work well with the ActivityPub protocol, but since they're closed-source they cannot be implemented by Mastodon instances?
- What if Threads implements asymmetric federation - where Threads users can interact with outsiders' content, but outsiders cannot interact with Threads' content?
- What if Threads has some bullshit term of agreement like "by using our platform you agree to have your data collected, and if you're seeing this you're already using our platform"?
- etc.
Note that Facebook has a long story of user-hostile decisions; as in, this crap wouldn't be below its moral standards. So, while most of the time this would be FUD, in this case it's just F, no uncertainty or doubt.
Exactly. And they've already done your second and third bullets!
What specific features do you have in mind that could be implemented in a closed-source manner that couldn't be reverse-engineered and implemented by open-source instance software too? It's not easy to come up with such a thing, and it's unclear what benefit it would serve Meta that they can't accomplish by just not joining the Fediverse in the first place.
If Threads implements asymmetric federation, I'll shrug and ignore them because I'll never see their content and it won't ever affect me.
Doesn't Threads already have a bullshit terms of service? That's my default assumption for any website, really. But even if they don't, ActivityPub is an open protocol and so of course my data is being collected by who-knows-how-many organizations already. Meta doesn't need to do anything new at all to get access to it.
Fair! Good and bad depends on your perspective and how successful Meta is. It's only the last bit about "using selfishly for Meta's own ends" that I see as inherently bad. In general though I've writen elsewhere that I think it's a great opportunity for the fediverse -- I talked about about why in In Chaos There Is Opportunity and probably will say more in a later post in this series.
I'd say that the vast majority of economic actors - both companies like Meta and individual people - are generally acting in a selfish manner. It's one of the great successes of modern market economies that most of the time that selfishness can be harnessed to serve the public good in various ways, so I'd want to see more detail about what exactly they're doing before calling it bad.
I've certainly never said I trust Meta, just that I don't think they're the maniacal evil overlords many of these discussions are portraying them as.
Jokes on them. I may exploit their federation too. I'm curious what a bunch of nerds could come up with to, lets say, spice up some threads users experiences...
Yeah and I don't think it's fully sunk in to Zuckerberg and Mosseri that they now have to be regulars on the FediBlock and FediBlockMeta hashtags
FUD