So I saw a recent post on lemmy from admins of another instance, forgive me for not remembering which, where they posted a full transparency update on Meta requesting a meeting with the admins of that instance. The admins declined, and then shared the correspondence with their community via screenshots of the original email from meta and their response.
My question is did @ruud@lemmy.world or any other lemmy.world admins get a similar invite, and if so, did you accept/attend?
I’m curious, because as far as I know lemmy.world has not made their stance on defederation from meta/threads very clear, not even to say that they weren’t sure or didn’t have a stance yet.
So, lemmy.world admins, If you did attend this off the record meeting, I’m sure they have some sort of agreement with you that the discussion stays off the record… But could you at least confirm or deny if you were invited to and/or attended such a meeting?
Edit: it was mastodon instance admins for Fosstodon here’s a link: https://fosstodon.org/@kev/110592625692688836 but my question still stands and I think the lemmy.world community deserves an answer.
Our best actual growth strategy from here on out is something I’ve been giving a lot of thought to. I think we need to rely on how niche, but also how connected we are.
Once the Federation is more interoperable, which should improve as we develop and scale up, we can pull steady, but small, numbers of users from a broad range of services.
Mastodon can’t compete with Twitter. What we need is basically the Fediverse to become a competitor of the whole internet, in a manner of speaking.
There are several potentially very large corporate instances in the works. My hope is that they can hold each other hostage because it’ll be so easy for their users to jump ship. They can embrace but they might not be able to extinguish.
I’m mainly worried about basically being slandered and suppressed. If I was Zuck, my main focus would be on controlling public opinion.
Doing SEO, running ads, doing whatever he can to make the popular perception of the Fediverse as a thing only virgin tech nerds should like. “Cool” people need to use his product.
Marketing, he’s going to beat us with marketing.
Well, that’s my other hope. That the Fediverse will steal a steady trickle of Threads users (and Twitter->Threads users) when they find out that they can have better control on an independent instance.
But it’s up to us to make sure that’s both true and that it happens.
If we’re actually separate. If it’s all one big Federation, there’ll be no incentive for them to come here from there. They gain nothing from doing so.
Being part of one big Federation doesn’t prevent Zuckerberg from making their feeds shit.
I want to get Meta’s data without Meta getting my data and also deciding what I see. That’s a proposition a lot of people will like the sound of. But only if we’re around to tell them.
They get our data either way though. If they stay there, and they federate, they’re no different from us.
The only way to create difference is to defederate. Unless I misunderstand something?
The Fediverse does not have any of my data.
Okay, I see. I’m talking with regards to content, not personal data. I think the vast, vast majority of people, over 95%, do not really care about their personal data. They say they do sometimes, when it comes time to make any kind of sacrifice or take any kind of action, that sentiment disappears. This is why I don’t personally consider it very relevant when contemplating how we’ll scale to the masses.
Content is king though, and where we need to create a differentiation. While they’ll always get our posts, defederating will cut off their engagement, they won’t be able to converse with us. I think that’s the key that defederation leverages.