Hmm wasn't there some kerfuffle recently about how the kernel was going to start self-issuing CVEs en masse? Is this the result of that plan?

This is one scenario I proposed when we were last having this discussion: https://thomask.sdf.org/blog/2023/07/07/if-i-was-meta-and-wanted-to-make-fedi-implode.html

N=1 but outbound federation just worked for me in a post. It seems some work was done just recently including an upgrade to -rc.8.

*A formerly chill laid back community up until someone posted it on Lemmy 😀

Sitting there watching with satisfaction as MSDOS 6.22 DEFRAG.EXE did its thing.

IME something like Signal is an easy sell since it's simple and works well. For all the fair criticism about relying on phone numbers it makes the onboarding easy. For other things compartmentalising helps, e.g., "okay we'll collaborate using this cloud file storage but I personally will be accessing it through the browser while keeping most of my files in a SyncThing over here". While I self-host certain things I don't volunteer to do that for family/friends because it will be too frustrating for everyone if/when I let them down.

In this kind of situation there's a fine line between someone who maximises their privacy through tech decisions and someone who makes their "correct" tech choices their self identity. If you drift into the latter, being asked to compromise can feel like an attack, leading to overreacting and coming across as insecure and annoying. Not to psychoanalyse anyone in particular but sometimes I think people need a reminder.

I recall that if you elude the monster long enough by catching enough logs you eventually wrap around to the start of the course and can ski down it again, and you get an additional monster chasing you when you get to the bottom.

Ask yourself, in three years from now will you be thinking "it's so nice how Meta lets me follow and interact with their enormous userbase for free, without advertising, using my own open source server and frontend"?

Remember that's the basic expectation today for a participant in the fediverse. If this feels implausible, doing anything else is very incompatible with the fediverse's existing values.

The problem isn't just that it's Meta, it's any situation where a much larger actor comes in with different motivations. Today we have a small number of users whose servers are almost exclusively run on a "community service" model. Meta is an advertising business. They are much bigger and will define the fediverse if allowed in. If we allow them to connect, it should be much later after organic growth which means we can assimilate them properly and deflect any bad behaviour.

What might happen if Meta throws their weight around? I can predict at least three outcomes

• Proprietary variations to ActivityPub, probably starting with something that seems "understandable" like moderation reasons.
• Certain new features get centralised on Meta's servers only (e.g. search) claiming that it's for efficiency in the distributed environment.
• Claiming spam problems, require individual instance operators or their users to verify themselves with Meta to enable federation.

The question in my mind is whether their intention is to destroy the competition, or keep the fediverse alive as a way to claim that they are not a technical monopoly that needs to be broken up by regulators, in the same way that Google provides most of the funding for Firefox.