This is why I use a paid host for Mastodon. Six bucks a month gets me my own instance with a custom domain and full admin rights.

There are three of us on said instance, and only two of us are active. It's easier to build a consensus that way. Absolutely none of us want to federate with anything Meta/Facebook. I preemptively blocked threads.net yesterday. To quote Khan Noonien-Singh:

"Let them eat static."

See, that's the nice thing about a federated solution. I can use my personal instance that federates with Mata and you can use one that doesn't and we can both be happy and still talk to each other. Being able to pick an instance that suits your preferences is the biggest selling point of the fediverse.

Yup they can mess up the fediverse in the near future

https://fabulous.systems/posts/2023/06/meta-is-a-danger-to-the-fediverse/

https://fediversereport.com/meta-plans-on-joining-the-fediverse-the-responses/

And there's Google's with their new privacy policy states that it can use publicly available data to help train its AI models

https://www.engadget.com/googles-updated-privacy-policy-states-it-can-use-public-data-to-train-its-ai-models-095541684.html

They only cares about money and unlimited growth.

Do you want Facebook to do to us what everyone else did to open standards???

Build a closed alternative, ignore that we even exist, bind all the users and have us fall back to the low levels of relevance we had before Twitter and Reddit went crazy.

At least with open standards we have a slim chance at giving our input on how we want things to be.

That happens whether they are defederated or not. They have 1.6bn users, the rest of the fediverse is a rounding error.

This is what happened with XMPP:

In 2013, Google realised that most XMPP interactions were between Google Talk users anyway. They didn’t care about respecting a protocol they were not 100% in control. So they pulled the plug and announced they would not be federated anymore. ...

As expected, no Google user bated an eye. In fact, none of them realised. At worst, some of their contacts became offline. That was all. But for the XMPP federation, it was like the majority of users suddenly disappeared. Even XMPP die hard fanatics, like your servitor, had to create Google accounts to keep contact with friends. Remember: for them, we were simply offline. It was our fault.

Even if the entire fediverse defederates from the Meta instance, they have a huge network which already exists. And people who want the things that a huge network brings will want to be part of it. Mass defederation will just push some people onto the Meta instance because it's the only place a huge network is operating (and many already have an Insta account so they're already on it anyway).

That's not to say that federating with them is necessarily better. Some users will prefer a smaller network. Some instances will want better moderation than Meta are likely to provide. Moderation issues might make it nigh on impossible for most instances to federate anyway.

But you can't stop them dominating the fediverse by universally defederating. That is not an option. Gmail got big enough to not need XMPP federation; Meta and other potential mega-corp instances are already huge, they don't need us at all.

The best hope might be for several mega-corp instances to hold each other hostage. Google could kill XMPP because none of its users understood that they were part of a federation and barely noticed when the tiny proportion of non-google users disappeared. But if there's a Meta instance and a Google instance and a Mozilla instance ... it's hard for one of them to unilaterally withdraw without handing their users over to a competitor.

Your argument is fully valid and defederating might be the right thing to do for you.

In the end, I have to weigh their cost to scrape my data against my cost to access content that I need. As someone who has built scrapers for scientific purposes before, I can tell you that building something that scrapes Mastodon and Lemmy instances is not a single cent more expensive than getting my data through federation. It's also probably a lot more reliable because they can get everything, not just what their users subscribe to. On the other hand, my cost for accessing my friends' and family's posts as well as corporate social media accounts if I don't do it through federation is creating an account in their proprietary app. And then they will be able to get a lot more of my data than they could ever scrape from my Mastodon profile.

That might actually be a feasible compromise.

No is not. Just do another account and join Therad. They are the "good guys" right? So I'm sure they will allow third app access to their contents, if not just download ther app as any other social.

Here's my problem/concern have you read their privacy policy? I want no part of that, would being federated with them mean that they get to siphon up all of my data too? If so I don't think the defederating goes far enough...

don't lose your head over this. lemmy, kbin, mastodon and apparently threads (the new twitter alternative by facebook/meta) are all part of the fediverse, which means they all follow a decentralised approach. mastodon and threads are microblogging platforms, while kbin and lemmy have a similar format to reddit. because they are all part of the fediverse, all these platforms communicate with each other and you can use kbin to subscribe to microblogs such as mastodon and have them appear in your feed. defederation basically means cutting the link between one server and another, so they can't communicate anymore.

What people call "the Fediverse" is a collection of web applications that talk to each other through an open standard called ActivityPub. ActivityPub defines what users, groups, posts, comments and likes are, how you can subscribe to them and how they travel between instances. People have built different software packages that all use ActivityPub but have different user interfaces to feel similar to different "traditional" platforms. Mastodon is like Twitter, Mastodon and kbin are similar to Reddit, PeerTube is similar to YouTube, Pixelfed is similar to Instagram or Flickr and Plume is a long form blogging platform similar to Medium or older versions of Wordpress. Because they all use the same protocol under the hood, they can generally talk to each other. The user experience isn't great yet but you can already use your Mastodon account to post to a lemmy community or to comment on a Plume post. Imagine it a bit like email where Gmail's web interface, MS Outlook, Thunderbird and dozens of other clients exist as well as several different Mail servers. They can all talk to each other even though they were written by different people and all have their own interpretation and extensions to the SMTP and IMAP standards that define how emails work

Threads is a new microblogging Application by Meta (Facebook / Instagram) that will probably work very similar to Mastodon. In contrast to most other fediverse applications, Threads won't be open source but will still use ActivityPub so it will be able to talk to existing open source applications. People here are afraid that they will abuse that to spy on people or systematically archive everything that happens in the fediverse in order to sell your data or train AI with it. They propose that we defederate from Threads (meaning we block our instances from talking to Threads' instance). My post contains my thoughts on why that isn't as useful as people think it is.

Hope that helps. If you still have questions, I'm happy to answer them to the best of my knowledge.

Mastodon = Twitter Lemmy = kbin = Reddit

No idea what Plume is, but I may Google it once I post this.

Threads is Metas (Facebook parent company) attempt to grab a share of the Twitter market share as Elon does his best to decimate his company.

If I understand correctly, Threads uses the same/similar publication method as Lemmy or kbin or Mastodon so the data can be freely shared between them all. So in that sense, you could argue that Threads was just a Mastodon instance being run by a company that has shown little regard for its users, and far more regard for its profits.

Note: this is a very, over simplified view of the landscape that isn’t technically correct however is an attempt to convey a picture that helps put the pieces together in a somewhat relatable way.