I don’t understand what Meta will gain from participating in the fediverse? Their ultimate goal is to make money of Threads and I just don’t see how encouraging an open federation will help them do it? Even 3Eing the fediverse will not do them much good as they already have sooo much traffic already that killing the fediverse will not make a serious change in their figures. But OTOH it does seem like Threads is net positive for the fediverse ATM. Even if all current denizens of the fediverse will block Threads, there is a large group of people that are exposed to the concept of “fediverse” for the fist time and some of them will want to learn more. This is a good thing. Anyway, I don’t know why they are doing it, but I’m cautiously glad they did it. Thanks for coming to my Ted talk.
Free eyeballs are free eyeballs.
Metz’s biggest business has been the manipulation of public opinion for years now. Their entry in the Fediverse is just their latest attempt at keep doing it. Privacy invasion and targeted ads are just tools that enable it for the former, and finance it for the later.
They participate because the Digital Markets Act is forcing them to: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en
Examples of the “do’s” - Gatekeeper platforms will have to:
- allow third parties to inter-operate with the gatekeeper’s own services in certain specific situations
*allow their business users to access the data that they generate in their use of the gatekeeper’s platform- provide companies advertising on their platform with the tools and information necessary for advertisers and publishers to carry out their own independent verification of their advertisements hosted by the gatekeeper
- allow their business users to promote their offer and conclude contracts with their customers outside the gatekeeper’s platform
The interoperability is the big one. The Fediverse gives a way for Meta to be in compliance, and they have an interest in maintaining competition.
I’ll summarize what the CEO of Instagram said in an interview on the Hardfork podcast this morning. Lots of hot takes here based on everyone’s rightful skepticism of Meta, but I think it’s worth understanding what their stated plan is.
First, the CEO said he thinks federation is the future, that social media in general is going to be increasingly moving that way in the next 5 years. This gives them a chance to take a big early swing in the space and get some learning in. Remeber, as much as a lot of fediverse people are worried about Threads joining, Threads is also worried about all of you who are already on the Fediverse. Part of what they are selling is a sane and we’ll moderated social platform that regular people can use, and federating is a challenge to their moderation. They are trying to work out how they can moderate content coming into the Threads server and shown to those users without having to defederate entire servers.
Second, and similar to number one, they expect that content creators, influencers, etc will come to expect account/follower portability as decentralization of social media becomes more widespread. This one is huge, and it’s one of their main selling points. They are telling celebrities that hey you can join Threads and it will be safe and sane, but if five years down the line you hate it, you can just pack up your account and move to another platform and keep all your followers. This is a really big deal, celebrities, influencers, journalists, etc spend years building followings and the main thing holding a lot back from jumping off Twitter for example is that when they go to a new platform they start with zero followers. Joining a platform where you are assured that you can jump ship without having to start at zero everytime is a huuuge selling point, and the reason they’ve been able to get celebrities on as early adopters.
Finally, the CEO said ads will probably come some day, but they are not focused on monetization at all right now, but just building a sustainable platform that is fun to use. They expect a lot of initial interest, and then for a bunch of users to get bored and leave, and then to work on slow growth overtime.
That’s straight from the horse’s mouth (via my memory). Was he being perfectly honest, probably not. For example, he said they made the decision to push Threads out now before it was fully EU complaint because EU compliance would take months and he was afraid they could miss their window of opportunity. He wouldn’t explicitly say Twitter has gone to shit and their going after that market, but that’s pretty clearly what he was alluding to. Also, keep in mind as a corporate representative all his statements can get the company in trouble for misleading shareholders (see Musks “going private at 420 a share” tweet for example), so he’s not able to outright lie about the company’s plans. So I’d take this all with a grain of salt, but I wouldn’t run immediately to conspiracy theories.
It’s interesting that they’re worried about moderation. It wouldn’t seem like too hard of a thing for a $100 billion company to just hire some some folks to take care of that.
I think its more how do they deal with moderation while federating. When you have a closed system, you can control everything. But when you have users on Threads reading posts from Mastadon.Social or some random smaller instances, how do you effectively filter the stuff coming into your server that your users will interact with. I don’t know enough how that all works, but the CEO seemed to characterize it as a technical problem they were working to solve.
ads will probably come some day, but they are not focused on monetization at all right now
most sites do not start out shittified, they become ENshittified.
That is fair. I mostly just think its interesting that he was fairly upfront about it. Meta is a for profit business, so its not unexpected. I do think it will be interesting though because they seem pretty committed to account portability, and if they stick with that then that puts some pressure on them to maintain a good user experience. Even all the talk about embrace, extend, extinguish, all starts with the assumption that Threads will be so big it will make changes and force other instances to either comply or get defederated and the assumption is that users would flock to Threads from Mastadon rather than the other way around. Personally, I expect Meta’s move here is going to increase interest in Activitypub and more projects are going to be launched on it, both from startups and established big tech. I think its equally plausible that the better analogy is AOL opening up to the world wide web and HTML and getting swallowed in the process. There is a lot of fear about Threads, but I’m not convinced this is a doomsday scenario for the fediverse, I’m personally cautiously optimistic.
It’s nice to see a (cautiously) optimistic voice on this subject for a change, although I think I feel less optimistic than you. But I do think there’s the potential for it to be mutually beneficial so long as Meta remains non-malevolent.
I think there a few key differences that mean the Google XMPP situation can be used as a direct parallel, too. Google didn’t really see much benefit from staying federated, because all federation did with live messaging was mean that non-Google users were benefitting from Google’s users without being monetised by Google. When Google’s users lost access to their non-Google contacts, the vast majority of them just carried on as usual, meaning Google continued monetising them as usual and it was only beneficial for Google as a company.
I don’t think that’s the case with Threads. Meta will continue to benefit from federating with well-moderated content in the future because, for Meta, it’s content that’s being created for free by another platform that they can still monetise. And if it’s well-moderated content, that’s effectively free moderation, too - something Meta would normally have to employ people for.
More interest in Activity Pub from other big players would definitely be a good thing, if only to make sure no one company has a monopoly. It would potentially have disadvantages, of course, but I think if tech giants are going to get involved, I’d rather multiple get involved to keep things somewhat competitive and (hopefully) drive consumer-friendly ideas.
