Federation with #Meta actually hurts Meta.
It is an existential threat to the very core of Meta’s social media monopoly. Surprisingly, if the goal is to fight against Meta’s hegemony, the most effective strategy may be to federate with them.
“But Chris,” some of you might state, “Even you agree that it might be better to defederate Meta – and you’ve even set up notmeta.social for expressly this purpose.”
Yes, because it’s not everyone’s objective to fight Meta, and there should be spaces where fighting Meta isn’t top of mind. Not everyone wants to be part and parcel of a fight, and that’s okay.
Let’s first acknowledge the technology through which federation happens. #ActivityPub is an open standard protocol that enables the decentralized social networking that powers the Fediverse. It allows different social media platforms (#Mastodon, #Calckey, #Kbin, etc.) to interoperate, meaning that users on one platform can communicate with users on another platform. Federation is the process by which these platforms connect and share content, forming a decentralized network.
The most important thing to understand about ActivityPub is that, more than a technology to merely send and receive messages, it’s also a common ruleset – a gentleman’s agreement that everyone will play nice when sending and receiving messages.
Now when Meta opts to use ActivityPub, they’re abiding by the agreement: to play by the same rules as everybody else. Should they renege on this agreement, they are no longer using ActivityPub. They’re using something else.
But let’s assume for a moment that Meta is abiding to use ActivityPub, and they indeed will play by the same rules. Knowing Meta, this is a tall order – but still, let’s assume.
ActivityPub means that whatever of Meta’s userbase that’s exposed to federation will diversify into other platforms. This is because, through ActivityPub, smaller platforms can connect with each other and offer a combined user base that competes with Meta’s centralized network. This diversification reduces the dependence of users on a single platform, giving them more choices and potentially drawing them away from Meta.
This creates an erosion of Meta’s network effects. Meta’s entire monopoly is based on ownership of their platforms’ network effects, where the value of the platform increases as more users join. Suddenly, by federating, Meta no longer own the network effect. This is because federation challenges this by breaking down barriers between platforms, allowing users to interact regardless of the platform they are on. This reduces the exclusivity and advantage Meta holds, as the network effects become distributed across multiple interconnected platforms.
Federation also gives Meta’s users power that they never previously had. Federation promotes decentralization by giving users greater control over their data and interactions. With ActivityPub, users have the freedom to choose which platform they prefer without sacrificing connectivity. This user empowerment threatens Meta’s control over user data and engagement, potentially leading to a loss of influence and advertising revenue.
ActivityPub poses a tangible threat to Meta’s monopoly on social media. By choosing to federate, Meta might be opening Pandora’s box. The moment Meta’s users receive a message from a server not owned by Meta is the moment they’re exposed to something else beyond Meta’s control. Inevitably, this will create more diversity of ActivityPub-enabled platforms – not less. This will erode Meta’s network effects. For people who use Meta, the power of decentralization – giving them more freedom – will prove revelatory.
Of course, this is a fight. And just because Meta federates doesn’t mean it’s game over. In the next post, I will explore what Meta is hoping to gain by joining the #Fediverse.
It is an existential threat to the very core of Meta’s social media monopoly. Surprisingly, if the goal is to fight against Meta’s hegemony, the most effective strategy may be to federate with them.
“But Chris,” some of you might state, “Even you agree that it might be better to defederate Meta – and you’ve even set up notmeta.social for expressly this purpose.”
Yes, because it’s not everyone’s objective to fight Meta, and there should be spaces where fighting Meta isn’t top of mind. Not everyone wants to be part and parcel of a fight, and that’s okay.
Let’s first acknowledge the technology through which federation happens. #ActivityPub is an open standard protocol that enables the decentralized social networking that powers the Fediverse. It allows different social media platforms (#Mastodon, #Calckey, #Kbin, etc.) to interoperate, meaning that users on one platform can communicate with users on another platform. Federation is the process by which these platforms connect and share content, forming a decentralized network.
The most important thing to understand about ActivityPub is that, more than a technology to merely send and receive messages, it’s also a common ruleset – a gentleman’s agreement that everyone will play nice when sending and receiving messages.
Now when Meta opts to use ActivityPub, they’re abiding by the agreement: to play by the same rules as everybody else. Should they renege on this agreement, they are no longer using ActivityPub. They’re using something else.
But let’s assume for a moment that Meta is abiding to use ActivityPub, and they indeed will play by the same rules. Knowing Meta, this is a tall order – but still, let’s assume.
ActivityPub means that whatever of Meta’s userbase that’s exposed to federation will diversify into other platforms. This is because, through ActivityPub, smaller platforms can connect with each other and offer a combined user base that competes with Meta’s centralized network. This diversification reduces the dependence of users on a single platform, giving them more choices and potentially drawing them away from Meta.
This creates an erosion of Meta’s network effects. Meta’s entire monopoly is based on ownership of their platforms’ network effects, where the value of the platform increases as more users join. Suddenly, by federating, Meta no longer own the network effect. This is because federation challenges this by breaking down barriers between platforms, allowing users to interact regardless of the platform they are on. This reduces the exclusivity and advantage Meta holds, as the network effects become distributed across multiple interconnected platforms.
Federation also gives Meta’s users power that they never previously had. Federation promotes decentralization by giving users greater control over their data and interactions. With ActivityPub, users have the freedom to choose which platform they prefer without sacrificing connectivity. This user empowerment threatens Meta’s control over user data and engagement, potentially leading to a loss of influence and advertising revenue.
ActivityPub poses a tangible threat to Meta’s monopoly on social media. By choosing to federate, Meta might be opening Pandora’s box. The moment Meta’s users receive a message from a server not owned by Meta is the moment they’re exposed to something else beyond Meta’s control. Inevitably, this will create more diversity of ActivityPub-enabled platforms – not less. This will erode Meta’s network effects. For people who use Meta, the power of decentralization – giving them more freedom – will prove revelatory.
Of course, this is a fight. And just because Meta federates doesn’t mean it’s game over. In the next post, I will explore what Meta is hoping to gain by joining the #Fediverse.
Chris Trottier
•Meta might be hoping to re-enforce their dominance. This is obvious when you look at their immediate objective: to kill Twitter. Federating with other platforms actually strengthens their ability to do this because Twitter is unlikely to federate. And what’s more, Twitter closed off their API access. When Meta rolls out #P92 (a.k.a., #Threads), they’ll have a platform that’s much more adaptable and extensible than Twitter’s. This could lead to both devs and users abandoning Twitter in favour of Meta’s Twitter competitor.
Another assumption Meta might have is that their immense user base, combined with federated connections, would give it even more control over the decentralized network. They might hope that this user base will prove to result in Threads becoming the central hub of the Fediverse, allowing them to exert significant influence and dictate the terms of interoperability, potentially stifling competition and innovation.
This is a big gamble. So why might Meta want to make this gamble anyway?
Federation could serve as a strategic move by Meta to address antitrust concerns. By appearing open to interoperability, Meta could argue that it is fostering competition and avoiding a complete defederation scenario. This approach may allow Meta to maintain its dominance while alleviating regulatory pressures.
But the biggest thing Meta might hope to achieve is fragmentation and consolidation of the Fediverse. If Meta establishes its dominance within the federation, it may exert control and influence in a way that undermines the original vision of a decentralized and open network. This consolidation of power could hinder the potential benefits of federation, such as increased user choice and data control.
On this last point, defederation might prove to help Meta rather than hinder it since defederation creates the conditions for more fragmentation.
Defederation within the Fediverse leads to fragmentation, inadvertently creating conditions that contribute to Meta’s dominance in the social media landscape. As platforms disconnect and sever their connections, the loss of interoperability and weakened network effects diminish the overall appeal and competitive strength of the Fediverse.
This fragmentation allows Meta, with its vast user base and resources, to emerge as a central hub of connectivity, attracting users seeking a more cohesive experience. The limitations in content distribution and discoverability further solidify Meta’s dominance, as it leverages its centralized network to offer a comprehensive and accessible content experience. Efforts to maintain a connected and cohesive federated network are essential to safeguard the principles of decentralization and prevent fragmentation from undermining the potential of the Fediverse as a viable alternative to Meta’s dominance.
The more the Fediverse fragments, the more Meta is likely to dominate it and consolidate its power.
However, as much as some people might want complete defederation of Meta – demanding not just defederation of Meta, but also defederation of all servers that federate with Meta – I believe that’s a losing battle. To a degree, there might be fragmentation of the Fediverse. But it’s unlikely we will see a multitude of competing Fediverses that are all powered by ActivityPub.
To enforce total defederation will require whitelisting, and policing of that whitelist. Who will decide which server is on that whitelist? It would need to be a central entity. And the moment you have a central entity deciding who is on the whitelist is the moment that version of the Fediverse centralizes.
This defeats the purpose of the Fediverse – which is decentralization.
So what can be done to actually deal with Meta’s threat? I have some ideas on how to use federation to fight Meta.
Daily TwerX ✅
•Are these regular mastodon/calckey servers that have a specific federation configuration?
If there was someone nearby who was about to provide hosting and someone nearby who was already signed up for updates; if asked to provide a lobby server what would be provided?
Is the idea to build a much greater mass of servers to try and reduce the dominance of meta hardware?
I'm wondering whether the greatest risk is Meta with its mass starts to dictate the direction of development for ActivityPub.
Chris Trottier
•As for how specific federation configuration would work, that’s beyond the purview of this thread.
Nevertheless, here’s a suggestion. A plausible ActivityPub configuration involving a lobby server and Meta could establish a mutual read/write access between the lobby server and Meta, allowing seamless communication and content sharing. In this configuration, servers that do not federate with Meta would provide read access to the lobby server, enabling the lobby server to consume and display their content. However, these non-Meta servers would not grant write access to the lobby server, meaning that the lobby server would not have the ability to directly interact with or modify content on those servers. This configuration ensures that the lobby server can gather and showcase content from a diverse range of non-Meta servers while maintaining the integrity of individual server boundaries and user control over their own platforms.
I don’t know what you’re specifically asking for regarding hosting, nor do I understand what physical proximity has to do with federation itself. But a lobby server’s specific purpose it to promote greater Fediverse access for people who use Meta’s services.
One purpose in building lobby servers is to create a larger mass that reduces the dominance of Meta. By increasing the number of independent servers within the Fediverse and expanding the overall network, the reliance on Meta’s hardware infrastructure can be diminished. This approach distributes the load across a greater number of servers, reducing the concentration of power and control in the hands of a single entity like Meta.
But the purpose isn’t just to provide a mass of servers. The intent would be for lobby servers to act as strategic intermediaries, connecting diverse platforms within the Fediverse and facilitating seamless communication and content sharing. By bridging communities and promoting interoperability, lobby servers would empower Meta’s users to explore alternative platforms, reducing their reliance on Meta’s ecosystem. Additionally, lobby servers can contribute to a more competitive landscape by showcasing the value and benefits of non-Meta platforms, encouraging user migration and diversification.
Chris Trottier
•Lobby servers can bridge communities. They act as intermediaries that connect different social media platforms, including Meta-owned ones, with non-Meta platforms. By establishing federated connections, lobby servers enable users on Meta’s network to interact with users on other platforms, creating bridges between communities. This connectivity exposes Meta users to alternative platforms, offering them the opportunity to explore and engage with a broader range of social media experiences beyond Meta’s ecosystem.
They’re also critical for syndicating content between Meta-owned social networks and non-Meta platforms. By federating with Meta, lobby servers can pull content from Meta’s network and redistribute it to other federated platforms. This syndication allows users on non-Meta platforms to access and engage with Meta users’ content, thereby exposing them to different perspectives and encouraging cross-platform interactions. It also encourages Meta users to explore content from non-Meta platforms, promoting diversification and reducing their reliance on Meta-owned networks.
Lobby servers can enhance the discoverability of non-Meta platforms for Meta users by providing recommendations and highlighting the benefits of alternative social media experiences. Through federated connections, lobby servers can expose Meta users to content, communities, and conversations happening on non-Meta platforms, enticing them to explore and potentially transition to these platforms. By curating and promoting relevant content from diverse sources, lobby servers can effectively showcase the value and appeal of social media platforms that are independent of Meta’s ownership.
Data portability is also important. Lobby servers can assist in facilitating the movement of user data and profiles from Meta-owned networks to non-Meta platforms. By leveraging federated connections, lobby servers can enable Meta users to export their data and import it into alternative platforms, simplifying the transition process. This data portability empowers users by providing them with the freedom to choose platforms that align with their preferences while preserving their existing social connections and content.
By acting as an intermediary between Meta and non-Meta platforms, the lobby server opens up avenues for users to explore and engage with alternative social media platforms, reducing their dependence on Meta. It fosters a diverse and interconnected ecosystem, exposing Meta users to different communities, perspectives, and content from platforms outside Meta’s control. As users discover the benefits and value of non-Meta platforms, the lobby server helps to create a more competitive landscape, thereby challenging and diminishing Meta’s dominant position in the social media sphere.
A lobby server serves as a superior migration path for Meta users to join the rest of the Fediverse compared to expecting them to delete their accounts and switch to a non-federating #Mastodon server. By utilizing a lobby server, Meta users can transition gradually while retaining their existing social connections and gradually exploring the broader #Fediverse. This approach ensures a seamless transition, preserves relationships, exposes users to diverse content and communities, and facilitates a gradual shift in user behavior. The lobby server enables Meta users to engage with alternative platforms at their own pace, making the migration process more accessible, appealing, and conducive to fostering a decentralized and inclusive social media landscape.
This is how we fight Meta, and this is how federation with Meta could potentially end Meta’s monopoly on social media.
Salvatore Denaro
•This would provide incentive for people to move to threads. After a while, the walls around the garden would grow.
It's the same embrace, extend, extinguish model they used with MySpace when they rolled out Facebook connect.
O! ver :neurodiversity:
•Byron, I couldn't start my questions by saying that I'm not a specialist at all. But it was obvious to me from the start that Chris knows what he's talking about. 🙂