Chris Trottier on Nostr: People are asking me what I think about #Meta joining the Fediverse. To review what ...

People are asking me what I think about #Meta joining the Fediverse. To review what I've said elsewhere, it' important to acknowledge three important realities:

1. Meta can use ActivityPub, and nothing can be done about it. Fediblock doesn't prevent Meta from using ActivityPub because ActivityPub is an open protocol.

2. A mass Fediblock (Gab style) is not happening. The big servers aren't doing it. And if the big servers aren't doing it, the medium and little servers don't have the power to enforce a mass Fediblock.

3. The majority of people on the Fediverse don't care -- and many of them even want to connect with Meta. I know, this might surprise you. But based on my observations, most people won't be leaving mastodon.social because it federates with Meta.

4. Even if the majority of servers Fediverse servers blocked Meta, that would still mean that certain unsavoury servers (which shall be unnamed) will likely connect Meta -- and I certainly don't want those servers to be the face of the Fediverse for people who use #P92

5. Even if Meta pulled a Truth Social and didn't connect to the Fediverse, that does not prevent them from sucking up all that data from ActivityPub -- seeing how that data is, in fact, public.

Am I saying there's no value in blocking Meta? Not at all. Yes, block them if you don't want to send and receive messages to P92. Will that prevent Meta from seeing your messages? As I said, no, not at all. But at least that's data you haven't directly given to Meta (unless you're allowing RSS on your server). And it will also mean you won't receive messages from Meta -- if that's your purpose, blocking is good.

Now I've come to believe that when Meta joins the Fediverse, the Fediverse will largely be divided into three factions:

Faction 1: Servers that federate with Meta
Faction 2: Servers that don't federated with Meta, but federate with servers that federate with Meta
Faction 3: Servers that don't federate with Meta, and don't federate with any server that federates with Meta

Factions 1 and 2 will probably go on their merry way. It's Faction 3 that I believe will die because it's ultimately unfeasible.

"But Chris!" some might say, "There's that pact!"

Unless all those servers in that pact are only federating via white labeled servers who've signed that pact, the pact is useless. Such white labeling would mean that every server that federates must be manually reviewed. And it means that every new server that joins the Fediverse will be federated with Faction 1 and Faction 2 before they're federated with Faction 3.

Which ultimately means that Faction 3 gets tinier and tinier, especially as churn occurs, and those users don't get replaced by newcomers.

In the end, what will federation via white label achieve? Not a whole lot, except make certain people believe they have done something substantial to fight Meta when they haven't.

At a certain point, we have to accept reality: Meta will use ActivityPub, and most people using the Fediverse will talk to them.

So am I waving the white flag?

Not at all. What's important to acknowledge here is that it's not we, the Fediverse, who have conceded. It's Meta.

It's Meta who have given up ownership of their own corporate-owned network effect in order to join the Fediverse.

Despite this concession from Meta, I'm not happy about them joining the Fediverse.

However, there's another consideration: for people who use Meta. it's an incremental improvement over what they had before -- which was no federation. Again, less worse is better than worse. If the world is slightly better -- even if it's not ideal -- it's still better.

Do I want people to use Meta-owned social networks? Not at all.

Here's where I disagree with 99% of people panicking about Meta: I believe ActivityPub will ultimately be Meta's own undoing.

And I want to hasten this undoing 😊