Gregory's ServerFederation 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.
Obviously, #Meta has something to gain by federating through #ActivityPub. If they saw no benefit in joining the #Fediverse, they wouldn’t do it. So let’s explore what they might hope to achieve.
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.
Obviously, #Meta has something to gain by federating through #ActivityPub. If they saw no benefit in joining the #Fediverse, they wouldn’t do it. So let’s explore what they might hope to achieve.
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