loobkoob @ loobkoob @kbin.social

Posts

1

Comments

263

Joined

2 yr. ago

There's a Wikipedia page about it with all sorts of links to rabbit holes you can go down!

I believe the rule of thumb is the 90:9:1 ratio:

• 1% of users create original content
• 9% of users interact with that content - voting/commenting on it, sharing it, etc.
• 90% of users are essentially just in read-only mode

Oh, well in that case it's a little more concerning. But I don't expect it to be a long-term issue. It certainly isn't a serious blow to my confidence in the security of the fediverse, that's for sure! It being a somewhat minor breach may be a blessing, also; it means there'll almost certainly be more of a focus on security going forward before something more serious happens.

Surely it's not really any different to any other website's admin having their account hacked/their password socially engineered? It's not an inherent flaw in the fediverse as a whole, just a human issue.

EDIT: see @Zephyrix's comment below. It was a security flaw.

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.