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.