The Fediverse will soon have power on the social web to shape its future, but only through and in the interaction with Meta. This is the reality the Fediverse has to start arranging itself with.
Most people see the upcoming joining of Threads as a conflict of interest, however, by now, the futures of both Meta and the Fediverse are heavily intertwined: both are dependent on one another for their success. In this sense, maybe it shouldn’t be thought of as conflict but as a fierce duopoly. In any case: both parts will have to arrange itself with this situation.
If so, it will shape the web in the next couple of years and that means, it would be a good idea to study it. At first, it could look like an unfair battle, but in fact, Meta has some weaknesses as well just as the Fediverse has some advantages.
Also: Meta is playing for time: the Copernican revolution of the social progresses merciless, and they can only somewhat control the consequences of this. At the same time, the open Fediverse will also have to be willing for this indirect coalition with Meta and if they will do that is nowhere near certain.
The Actors: Meta and the Open Fediverse
Meta
Factors that favour growth in the Fediverse:
- Money
- Social Capital and network effects
- Located in US with more loose legislations on big tech.
Factors that hinder growth in the Fediverse:
- Meta is playing against time. It still heavily depends on web2 both ideological and practical; the current shift of digital world view directly threatens its future (the Copernican revolution of the social web is progressing)
- Public Image (temporarily fixed)
- but memory of earlier scandals remain
- also zeitgeist is against them
- Wants to avoid drama (avoid political discussions on platforms, etc.), which will be hard when connecting to the Fediverse
Open Fediverse
Factors that favour growth in the Fediverse:
- Sympathy of Legislators
- Complete openness gives room for free innovation
- Basic sympathy from most people: It came there first
- Resilience and unbending nature of community
Factors that hinder growth in the Fediverse:
- Little resources (funding, moderators)
- Radical parts of own community (too high self-standard, toxicity, etc.)
- Vulnerable to automated SPAM
- Public image problem of its own (too serious, too arrogant, too uncompromising/do not live up to their own standards when it comes to an open digital ecosystem)
An Actor that could also become interesting: The Free Fediverse
Uncompromising idealists of a non-corporate social web, potentially origin of radicalisation and toxicity. Not interested in any cooperation with Threads, small or big actions against the Fediverse by Threads are held up as arguments for the permanent banning of Threads. At the same time high degree of involvement in the project and generally many FOSS-enthusiasts that are important for the overall Fediverse development.
In summary, this results in the following three ways to look at the Fediverse:
What’s your view of the situation?
Other Actors that are still there: BlueSky, X and other Tech Giants
Additionally, there is the view of competitors of the growing Fediverse ecosystem.
Will they just get irrelevant at some point? If the duopoly remains, not, if either one of the parties fucks it up too much, they will be ready to take up the reigns. They are the stand-in, only ready to take up Meta’s or the Fediverse’s place.
They too, will watch this unlikely coalition closely. And remember: Meta asks us to dance with them, but it’s not as if we haven’t also sought attention from other giants. And this was always the way it was planned to be: at some point, one of the tech giants would dance with us. If we want to get big, we need to get better at dancing.
Also, they would only be too eager to let the conflict between Meta and the Open Fediverse escalate. Maybe some will at some point join, too. There is much that could happen.
Conclusion
Meta joining the Fediverse is always portrait as a sign of goodwill – what if they are dragged into it? What if it’s their lifeline? And now combine this with the politics and the drama waiting for them there and you have a perfect storm right ahead of Meta.
All of this makes Meta’s move into the Fediverse look much less flattering and smooth and gives the non-Meta parts of the Fediverse plenty of legroom! In this sense: don’t panic, build!
In the Fediverse, Meta thinks that they have found their eternal source to avoid enshittification, polish their public image, dominate a new market and slow down their decline in the digital world view of many people. And maybe this will turn out to be the right choice. But they are probably also well aware that this energy has the power to destroy them.
That said, of course, the Fediverse is also not without its own vulnerabilities, first and foremost by automated spam, keeping up funding, its own problematic parts of the network and whether it likes it or not: the fact that its future will be heavily intertwined with Meta. Two objects, circling around each other in order not to get sucked into the black hole in-between; both dependent on and capable of destroying one another. This is the primeval soup, in which the new social web is born.
For a moment, just appreciate how exciting this is.
Will this be the future of the social web or a corporate solution like BlueSky? I hope it’s the Fediverse with its unruly dynamics.
In any case, things will surely not become boring. Hopefully, they will not become too exciting. In my opinion, an equilibrium between the two forces that stayed for a certain amount of time would be the best thing to thrive for here. Remember that at this point, Meta still has the power to shut down the whole thing completely. Also: the Fediverse needs to become big, but if the time has come that this is possible, it has to be ready to replace Meta’s ecosystem as well, and its nowhere near that. If Meta would disappear from today to tomorrow, the world would first of all having lost something that was at least in parts good. Recreating something like this that, on this scale, which is at the same time better will be difficult and take time.
So: it’s not like we have to always play nice with Meta, but let’s not give them a reason to pull the plug on their Fediverse-integration, and let’s remember that Meta is not owned by Musk and there currently exist many stable services in the Fediverse that are run by decent people. Our position could all be worse; we shouldn’t let Meta treat us like it pleases, but we should as well not be the one escalating the upcoming conflict.
If we want the Fediverse to become big, the ride with Meta is without alternative anyways. Instead of a war for the social web, we need to attune ourselves for years of tight interaction with Meta that will pendle somewhere between indirect conflicts and mutual-suspicious co-existence.
There will be good times and bad times, and there will always be those people that say that now is the time that we don’t need Meta anymore or even that we can abolish Meta now completely; but as long as it doesn’t lose its predominant position itself (which will mean that we won’t need to do any of those actions anyways) or doesn’t turn authoritarian, I will always strongly disapprove with them.
This is a unique opportunity, and we have to live up with the responsibility of this: to shape the future of a global fediverse. But it’s very well possible that we decide ourselves against it. But then, it will only be others that will drive the change, or it will not happen at all.
Meta and the Fediverse could give birth to a new social web, if they decide themselves for it. And Meta already gave signs of interest, while the Fediverse is still ambiguous. The question for those hesitant people is: how when not through a duopoly like should the big Fediverse have been created? Was there ever an alternative?
I think we are well on course if we arrange ourselves with the situation and learn to roll with the punches.
Meta’s point of view in detail: Trying to control as well as profit from the Fediverse is like playing with fire for Meta, or: Three things that limit Thread’s growth in the Fediverse
For Meta, entering the Fediverse will not be as smooth as it may seem and as many in the Fediverse fear. In fact, there are a few things that Meta is probably worried about in this whole endeavour.
Politics
Meta already said that they want to ensure to make Fediverse-connection as safe as possible. This is of course a good thing. I even think that on such a big scale, at the moment, it’s good to have someone like Meta ensure especially for younger people a save usage of the Fediverse. However, at the same time, this “safeness” will probably result in keeping users away from political views that Meta finds problematic to avoid scandal. They are already cracking down on the politics discussions on Threads, what will they say about all the political discussions that will pour in from the Fediverse and that only become louder, the deeper they get dragged into. Not speaking about Lemmy, an app that is developed by people that have Mao on their GitHub page (which I myself am actually concerned about)? People on Lemmy discuss whether to federate with Meta or not, but it could be just as likely that Threads won’t federate with them. In any case, the Fediverse doesn’t necessarily contain the discussions that Meta is searching for its apps.
This is also a point, where the Fediverse doesn’t shine in a good light: there is much drama and even toxicity in the Fediverse. It’s also a big problem of the Fediverse and of course political extremism is not good, but even mildly controversial political content is not encouraged on Threads nowadays. They want to avoid drama and politics, there is plenty of both in the Fediverse.
The Copernican Revolution of the Social Web
The way we think about the social web is beginning to change. It is no longer synonymous with Meta and as long as they cannot deny the existence of the Fediverse, they at least want to stay at the centre of it. But this is already showing some weakness and only bought them time before the next shift in world view, in which Meta is no longer at the centre.
And venturing deeper into the Fediverse means fuelling the Copernican Revolution of the Social Web. We are contradictory to the world view that they want their users to have. As written in my earlier post, Meta wants users to have a certain view of the digital, in which Meta is in the centre. The existence of apps like Pixelfed, contradicts this view. People that realize that to Meta’s services, there may be thousands of alternatives out there is not something Meta wants. This means that it’s not unlikely that they will crack down on mentions of Fediverse-related stuff, but at the same time, this also limits how far they can travel into the Fediverse, until too many people realize what’s going on there. Meta is playing all cool and in control, but they know well enough what happened to AOL. It’s now like AOL tried to surf the wave without getting blown up in the course of this (which they also did but unsuccessfully): they want to limit the Copernican revolution but at the same time don’t want to miss the innovative potential. They are in a dilemma here, because they have no choice but to continue and moderate the change that will eventually led to their decline or at least a great loss of their power in the social web.
In an earlier post, I compared Meta to the catholic church that want to stay at the centre of the universe; however, it should be added that a key difference is, that Meta is still a progressive institution in the literal sense of the word: they define themselves through technology, even if they want to dominate it. Yes, they profit from a certain limited world view of their users, but it also limits their innovative potential, which is why they are in a deep dilemma here.
Public Opinion
Meta has all the money but lost the cultural hegemony long ago and the only reason it gained some of it in the last year was because Musk was worse; but how long will that last? Probably, in this section, too, it will be a back and forth between sympathies for both Meta and the rest of the Fediverse.
Fungiverse Tales 