sapient [they/them] @ sapient_cogbag @infosec.pub

Autistic queer trans²humanist and anarchist. Big fan of dense cities, code,

---

Read more

Posts

6

Comments

201

Joined

2 yr. ago

Not yet. And hopefully most of the instances decide to pre-emptively defederate.

lmfao

The post is too big for my next edit, so here is the next edit in a comment:

Edit 2 - Clarification, Expanding on Facebook's Behaviour, Discussion of Admin-FB Meetups

I want to clarify the specific dangers of Meta/FB, as well as some terminology.

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, and Embrace, Extend, Consume

The link I posted approximately explains EEE, but in this thread I've used the phrase "Embrace, Extend, Consume", to illustrate a slightly modified form of this behaviour.

Embrace, Extend, Consume is like Embrace, Extend, Extinguish except the end goal isn’t complete annihilation of the target. Instead of defederating at the endpoint, Meta/FB just dominates the entire standard, and anyone who steps out of line is forced into a miniscule network of others.

They can then use this dominant position to buy out or consume large instances, or for example, force data collection features into the standard and aggressively defederate anyone else who doesn’t comply >.< - because they're so big, most instances will comply in the service of "content".

Such a dominant position can even be obtained simply by sheer user mass, which Threads already has to some degree, as long as the relevant instance has large amounts of financial resources to buy out instances.

In this way, they consume the network entirely, which doesn’t necessarily destroy the communities but essentially Borg-ifies them and renders people unable to leave their grasp.

Facebook/Meta-Specific Threats: Information Warfare & Manipulation

One of the major specific threats of Meta/FB in particular is their long and continued history of engaging in what essentially amounts to large-scale psychological manipulation and information warfare towards it's various goals (money, total domination of human communication, subsuming the internet in countries where the infrastructure is still too small to resist a single corporation restricting it's content, political manipulation, collection of ever more data, etc.), against both it's users and non-users.

They have well over a decade of experience in this, hundreds of times more users than us (providing good cloaking for astroturfers), and untold amounts of labour, research and other resources have been poured specifically into figuring out the most effective ways to manipulate social groups via techniques like astroturfing, algorithmic prioritization, and more sophisticated strategies I am not aware of. All backed by data from literally billions of human beings >.<

This means that exposing the Fediverse to Facebook/Meta is essentially exposing us all to one of the most organised and sophisticated information warfare machines that has ever been created. Cutting off the connections immediately (as in the other analogy by @BreakingBad@lemmy.world) not only protects from direct EEE/EEC, but also makes it harder for Meta/Facebook to influence, dominate, and consume the conversation here, either by sheer user-mass, or by malicious information warfare (or even unintentional consequences of their algorithms), or by a combination of all of these.

We know they are extremely malicious and willing to use these methods towards real-life, ultra-harmful ends. Examples are at the start of this post :)

For hypothetical examples on how this might work - in reality it might be different in the specifics (these are just illustrative):

• Meta/FB could start a campaign (maybe astroturfed) for "user safety", where they encourage people to distrust users from smaller instances or any user with their instance address marker not on @threads.<whatever their url>
• Meta/FB could add "secure messaging" (lol, it's facebook), but only between threads users. Then they could push the idea that ActivityPub is bad for privacy (the DMs are, but just use Matrix ;p - if you post stuff publicly, it makes sense that it's public).
• Meta/FB could by simple user mass result in most communities being on Threads. People tend to drift towards more populous communities about the same topic, in general, and Threads unbalances the user ratios so much that everyone would just go to those >.< (as opposed to right now, where we have similar sized communities on several large instances, where most people subscribe to most of them)
• Meta/FB could use social engineering to push for changes to the ActivityPub protocol that are harder for other ActivityPub servers to implement ., or even ones that are hard for non-proprietary clients to implement. For example, embedding DRM in the protocol or something like that.
• Meta's algorithms could over time shift towards deprioritising non-"paid"/"verified" Threads users.
• It's already been explained how the app as we know it essentially makes it hard for people to leave due to the fact only they have access to their server software and they also ensure that the app is only a specific client for this service.

Instance Admins, and the "Friendliness" of Meta

Some instance admins have been in contact with Meta/FB. It does make sense for at least some of them to do "due dilligence", but I've seen in at least one post a comment on the friendliness and cooperativeness of the engineers and the fact they mostly discussed architectural concerns and stuff like moderation and technical stuff.

I want to remind instance admins that no matter how nice the engineers are - and how much they share your interests - they are still working for what is essentially a mass information warfare machine. This doesn't make them malicious at all, but it does mean that what they are doing is not a solid perspective on the actual goals and attitude of Meta/Facebook, The Corporate Assimilator Organism.

Regardless of what they have discussed, they are obligated as employees to act on Meta's orders, not the things they actually want to work on or the things both them and you find important . - or even act towards the goals they want to act towards when Meta inevitably goes for the throat.

I encourage instance admins to keep this in mind, and further keep in mind that Meta is pretty much royalty when it comes to social stuff and how to appeal to people. If they were trying to appeal to a more corporate social media service, they'd probably have gone with sending in the C-suite, but they know this community is technically inclined and less likely to buy into corpo speak and corpo bullcrap, so they probably hooked you up with all the chill engineers instead :).

Reiterating my view: Resist Corpo-Assimilation!

Note on This Post

I've realised this post would probably be most useful if the primary targets of Threads could see it (Mastodon). But I don't have Mastodon cus I really am not into microblogging myself, so RIP ;p

Someone has explained the basic Embrace, Extend, Extinguish strategy below, but I also want to comment on my own "Embrace, Extend, Consume" idea, as well as the other issues that come with Facebook.

Embrace, Extend, Consume is like Embrace, Extend, Extinguish except the end goal isn't complete annihilation of the target. Instead of defederating at the endpoint, Meta/FB just dominates the entire standard, and anyone who steps out of line is forced into a miniscule network of others. They can then use this dominant position to buy out or consume large instances, or for example, force data collection features into the standard and aggressively defederate anyone else who doesn't comply >.<

In this way, they consume the network entirely, which doesn't necessarily destroy the communities but essentially borgifies them and renders people unable to leave.

The other component specific to facebook is their long and continued history of engaging in what essentially amounts to large-scale psychological manipulation and information warfare towards it's various goals (money, total domination of human communication, subsuming the internet in countries where the infrastructure is still too small to resist a single corporation restricting it's content, political manipulation, collection of ever more data, etc.).

They have well over a decade of experience in this, hundreds of times more users, and untold amounts of labour, research and other resources have been poured specifically into figuring out the most effective ways to manipulate social groups via techniques like astroturfing, algorithmic prioritization, and more sophisticated strategies I am not aware of. All backed by data from literally billions of human beings >.<

This means that exposing the Fediverse to Facebook/Meta is essentially exposing us all to one of the most organised and sophisticated information warfare machines that has ever been created. Cutting off the strings (as in the other analogy by @BreakingBad@lemmy.world) not only protects from direct EEE/EEC, but also makes it harder for Meta/Facebook to influence, dominate, and consume the conversation here, either by sheer user-mass, or by malicious information warfare (or even unintentional consequences of their algorithms), or by a combination of both.

For hypothetical examples on how this might work - in reality it might be different in specific, these are just illustrative:

• Meta/FB could start a campaign (maybe astroturfed) for "user safety", where they encourage people to distrust users from smaller instances or any user with their instance address marker not on @threads.<whatever their url>
• Meta/FB could add "secure messaging" (lol, it's facebook), but only between threads users. Then they could push the idea that ActivityPub is bad for privacy (the DMs are so just use Matrix ;p, but if you post stuff publicly, it makes sense that it's public).
• Meta/FB could by simple user mass result in most communities being on Threads. People tend to drift towards more populous communities about the same topic, in general, and Threads unbalances the user ratios so much that everyone would just go to those >.< (as opposed to right now, where we have similar sized communities on several large instances, where most people subscribe to most of them)
• Meta/FB could use social engineering to push for changes to the ActivityPub protocol that are harder for other ActivityPub servers to implement ., or even ones that are hard for non-proprietary clients to implement.

Yep! .

It's not super difficult to pull content, but you ofc can't push back content.

But theyve got the numbers to support their own echo chambers. I’m not saying what meta is doing isn’t a threat, but isn’t it better to be in the same room as their users to have a conversation with them than have them exist in their own echo chamber thinking the fediverse is only what meta wants them to think it is?

In a room where Facebook/Meta controls the entire algorithm, who gets to see what, and any astroturfing efforts they make? And where the fraction of people who will ever see your post is so tiny as to be insignificant? No. Facebook have over a decade of brazen, malicious psychological manipulation experience - as well as lots of money - that they have used to attempt to agglomerate more and more control over the way people communicate and engage in horrific behaviour (like the stuff listed in my Original Post).

Trying to play the game on their field is a losing proposition in every case, when it's with a company that has much more than a decade of information warfare and manipulation capabilities and hundreds of times more users (plus probably 100s of thousands of times the financial resources). The Fediverse is far too small to compete with that at the moment.

If you really need to sell the idea of the Fediverse to Threads users, you can still make a Threads account, or spin up an instance for yourself to do that. Exposing the Fediverse as a whole to the metastatic organism known as Facebook/Meta is a losing proposition.

Meta/Facebook has 100s of times the number of users, many more times the amount of resources, the constant desire to consume other platforms like Instagram and whatsapp (or destroy the a-la Embrace, Extend, Extinguish), and well over a decade of experience in engaging in manipulation and essentially, information warfare, to get what they want and commit hienous behaviour.

Even just the quantity of users on a single, difficult to exit instance is a risk, but the continuous and long history of Facebook engaging in largescale psychological manipulation makes them many times more dangerous .

In particular, you looking at their algorithmically curated posts enables them to manipulate you with their decades of refined, algorithmic experience in doing so, as they have repeatedly done in the past.

Why wouldn’t they be able to interact with it. The way I understand, if I defederate with them on my instance they can still see my content but I can’t see theirs. There’s nothing stopping Metta from taking that public data anyways and allow only their users to interact with it in their own sealed space. With how many users they have, it’s possible it wouldn’t even be noticed by the average threads user

Well, theoretically we could do the same. Host shadow-Threads content. That's essentially what's going on with reddit repost-bots, after all. But if you look at those they usually have no comments and for Facebook in particular, I would argue that enabling their ability to spread their content to the Fediverse is dangerous even if we don't interact with it.

And the same is true for Threads - they could actually do that kind of re-posting, in theory, but then it's pretty much just them reposting a link to some post on the Fediverse with their own silo. We wouldn't see any of them at that point. I'm arguing for defederating on the basis that it protects us from Meta/Facebook, not on the basis that it would stop Threads users from seeing some parts of Fediverse content (essentially posted as links) ..

Did you read any of my arguments?

If we defederate, they can technically pull our content because it's public, but it's difficult, and their users won't be able to interact with it.

We would not be able to see theirs unless you manually went to their site.

Right now, they still haven't turned federation on, so we can't do that. If we do federate, we will be able to (easily) see and interact with their content, and they will be able to (easily) see and interact with our content. If we defederate, we can technically see each other's content by visiting their site (or them visiting ours), but we wouldn't be able to usefully interact with them and vice-versa without making an account on their site (or vice-versa) .

I think one of the ways we could combat as well as defederating them from instances is provide such a good user experience to consume content on the fediverse that threads - or whatever else - becomes just a shittier, ad-ridden version of what we use.

Look at Reddit for example, if they didn’t have the power to remove our access to APIs, third party apps would still provide the best experience. Can any of the features Reddit provides that third party apps don’t justify the number of ads thrown in your face? Nope.

I certainly am not against improving the UI, but at the current scale of the Fediverse we don't have anywhere near the resources to compete directly with Facebook/Meta. It's too early. The primary defense must be defederating.

Making our UI advancements in a way that a corporation cannot - for instance, exploiting their need for advertising to make sure we have better experiences - is a good strategy in the long term. But it is a secondary strategy to immediate defederation ., because Facebook is only at the start of the enshittification process for Threads and hence they won't be pumping it full of ads and their engineers can focus on having a "better" experience in the short term until they destroy us.

Same here, if we focus on improving the experience of a Lemmy or kbin user and ignore whatever meta is doing, nothing is stopping us from becoming just the better way of consuming all fediverse content. Then if threads were to drop federation, we would still have the upper hand.

The only thing that might hurt us in the end is if we start giving in and host communities on their instance. But if we don’t, and keep our ground, we can have the best of both worlds. See their content without their ads, and keep control of our own content, without their rules.

You can't have the best of both worlds, unfortunately. By exposing Fedi users to Meta/Facebook content, we expose ourselves to a company that has a long and continuing history of social manipulation and is able to pressure us to host communities on Threads - even if it's only done by sheer mass of users.

By letting them in, we've already almost lost. Whether by direct EEE, or by simple user agglomeration onto primarily-Threads communities, or by a deliberate campaign by Meta/Facebook, they will eventually try and gain direct control of the network.

My opinion is that the only useful response to an organisation that is openly known for direct deception and manipulation and attempting to assimilate existing networks (like e.g. what happened to Instagram and Whatsapp and XMPP, and probably others I'm not specifically aware of) is outright rejection.

This assumes that the people joining threads actually consider themselves part of the Fediverse, which I would bet is not the case. They're just using their existing IG account, and if more communities and groups start being formed on Threads than anywhere else Facebook essentially gets control over most of the fediverse, due to it's large size.

It also assumes that the instances defederating are going to be a small minority, which doesn't have to be the case at all. We already have pretty thriving communities here, we don't need Threads to grow - just improving our user experiences to grow steadily until we are as the Fediverse strong enough to seriously resist this kind of corporate agglomeration. .

The only response to a corporation specifically known for mass social manipulation is to defederate rather than let them get their hooks in. In your analogy, this is using our high speed engine and maneuverability to get as far away as possible before they just obliterate us.

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, and Embrace, Extend, Consume (my version of EEE, where an instance becomes so dominant that defederation would ruin the experience for every other instance and essentially locks them into federation to be useful).

It's not a zombie network now, but it will be if Facebook EEEs us. We don't need to grow by becoming attached to Facebook nya.

And calling engaging with an FOSS protocol immediately with NDAs suspicious is not "tinfoil hat behaviour", when we are talking about Facebook, which again, is well known for social manipulation and astroturfing.

Social manipulation, brazen EEE or EEC. None of this is necessarily specifically about privacy, which I explained in the post, but about open and brazen manipulation.

I actually support making it easier for people to join the Fediverse. For instance, by having each instance compile lists of other instances which self-determine the kinds of topics they want and pointing new users to instances that are less overloaded, and by making the signup process easier, and improving UI. Letting Facebook consume us and destroy us via EEE is not that.

The "gatekeepers" are the people willing to set up instances ..

My point is that defederation is our defense against corporate interests. And Facebook isn't just "a corporation", it's specifically a known hostile actor with massive experience in social manipulation. It's not a perfect defense, but you don't resist corporate subsumation by letting them straight through the door.

Meta in particular has a specific record of social manipulation, which is why I think defederating them specifically is so important. Even if we collectively have mixed feelings on corporate instances in general, social media companies, especially those like Facebook, have a specific and direct record of manipulating people and the population nya. Facebook/Meta in particular, is probably the worst of any of them.

Goddamn! I love the fediverse :)