Meta can introduce their signature rage farming to the Fediverse. They don’t need to control Mastodon. All they have to do is introduce it in their app. Show every Threads user algorithmically filtered content from the Fediverse precisely tailored for maximum rage. When the rage inducing content came from Mastodon, the enraged Thread users will flood that Mastodon threads with the familiar rage-filled Facebook comment section vomit. This in turn will enrage Mastodon users, driving them to engage, at least in the short to mid term. All the while Meta sells ads in-between posts. And that’s how they rage farm the Fediverse without EEE-ing the technology. Meta can effectively EEE the userbase. The last E is something Meta may not intend but would likely happen. It consists of a subset of the Fediverse users leaving the network or segregating themselves in a small vomit-free bubble.

Some people asked what EEE is:

  • hikaru755@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    328
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    And that’s precisely why so many people are calling for everyone to defederate immediately from anything facebook-owned. The only way to prevent this is to not even let them get started.

    • STUPIDVIPGUY@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      79
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah imo this is the only way. Fediverse should be completely user-owned, we need to isolate any corporation that tries to get involved.

        • Emanresu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The corporate power structure is the problem. Non-profit status is like a negative head start to corruption. Ubuntu is taking step after step of microsoft like action for example. Also, wikimedia is dead. They have a massive Mormon style of excess funding that they put on the casino stockmarket while still begging and harassing for donations.

      • kava@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Either we have an open system or we don’t.

        It’s sort of like open source encryption algorithms versus security by obscurity. One is totally open because it’s foundation is strong. The other is hidden because it is actually weak.

        Which are we going to be?

        • hikaru755@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This feels very close to the paradox of tolerance, honestly. To achieve maximum tolerance, you can not tolerate those who are intolerant themselves, or they will destroy you from within. I think something similar applies here. To achieve a maximally open system, be open by default, but only to those who actually share the goal to keep the system as open as possible, and defend vigorously against those who don’t.

        • Illecors@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          We are going to be open. Open to the idea that a bucket of shit does not have to be forced upon us. Open to using the tools to get rid of said bucket.

          • kava@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            What I think is interesting about this is the decision to federate goes down to individual instances. So for example mastodon.social is the biggest - their decision is very important.

            But on the smaller level, users will be able to choose instances that won’t federated with Meta. And they will be able to choose the inverse.

            What I see happening is that the ones that do choose to federated with Meta will grow larger and sort of suck up most of the userbase. At the end of the day, social media sites are only as valuable as the number of users and the interactions between those users.

            • Rusticus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              But to give power to the users we’ve got to solve the username problem. Usernames need to be global so there is no penalty to moving between instances.

              • kava@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Why not just do username@instance and then if you wanna transfer over to somewhere else you have to change your username?

                I don’t really view that as an issue. The real issue is allowing transfer in the first place, which I don’t see anyone doing right now but I agree it would spark a lot of healthy competition between different sites on the Fediverse

          • kava@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, but I think that’s more akin to giving Meta your instance admin password. Federating would be more like sharing your public key. Which, you know, is sort of the whole point.

    • solrize@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pretty stupid to want to defederate an instance over one Trump troll, but not defederste Zuckerberg, the emperor of trolldom. Yes, pls do everything possible to keep Meta away.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I see we disagree on whether one smart guy or a dumb guy with a bajillion listeners is the bigger problem.