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:

  • STUPIDVIPGUY@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    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.

    • Drewfro66@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with the sentiment but with a caveat:

      Just like with email, I think the future of the Fediverse will involve institutions and companies running their own instances for discussion related to their niche.

      For example, universities might run their own servers for campus-related discussion, and game companies (Paradox Interactive comes to mind) might run a server for discussion around their games and by their members.

      Running a server is expensive, and in the long run I think the sustainable future will be for established institutions with large budgets to put a tiny part of that forward for instance hosting, rather than individuals self-hosting instances that actually lose money even when buffered by user donations.

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

        Yeah sure but profit based entities we know screw up everything with their greedy mentality. I am for staying away from any profit-driven entities.

      • Flemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Running a server isn’t that expensive. Someone did a breakdown, and found the cost is around $0.20/user/year. Their math might have been a little off, but it’s in the ballpark based on the back of the envelope math I use to see if something scales

        That’s well within casual donation amounts.

        But, that assumes admins and mods are volunteers- maybe they get a few bucks now and again, but their time is a far bigger factor than server costs

    • 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.