2023-08-15 (originally posted to Mastodon on 2023-07-13)

With the launch of Threads, there's been a lot of great discussion around the many safety and privacy risks it poses to people on the Fediverse. There's been less discussion around how much power Meta will have to shape our experience here - and it's potentially a lot. The chronological Mastodon feed is easily exploited by an entity that has no incentive to play by the conventional rules of the fediverse, and Meta's algorithm will gradually (or maybe quickly!) come to dominate the feed of anyone on an instance federated with them.

Players

I wrote another piece on Kbin.social as a sort of 'Part 1 of 2':

=>https://kbin.social/m/FediPact/t/189575/Threads-Will-Break-Kbin-And-Lemmy-interoperability-isn-t-just-about

explaining how Lemmy/Kbin's social dynamics would be completely broken by federation with Threads. (Long story short, the two types of software may speak the same ActivityPub protocol, but a boost on a link aggregator does something very different from a boost on a microblogging app - and this ends up making the 'interoperability' harmful.)

But Threads and Mastodon (or pick your favourite fediverse microblogging software!) are both microblogging services, so the Lemmy/Kbin argument doesn't apply; a boost on Threads has pretty much the same social function as a boost on Mastodon. So why does federation with Threads undercut Mastodon's core mission to put "social media back in the hands of the people"?

First off, how does Mastodon aim to fulfill its mission? I count three main ways. First, there's the network decentralization, meaning no one entity controls the entire platform. Second, Mastodon is a non-profit, so there are no shareholders to please. And third, there is no algorithm determining what you see. Your Mastodon feed is more or less a chronological view of the posts, boosts, and comments of the people you choose to follow.

Contrast that with Meta, which has a centralized network, a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, and because of that profit motive, they serve up an algorithmically determined feed, designed to keep people scrolling as much as possible, so they can collect as much data as possible, so they can sell as many ads as possible and keep those shareholders happy.

An algorithmic feed takes away user control over our experience and hands it to whoever is in control of the algorithm. It shapes our perception of the world. It can, and it has, incited massive waves of hatred and brutal violence.

There are some big assumptions baked into federation, and one of them is that the apps will respect the network conventions. What does this mean? Well, for starters, there's no guarantee that Meta will immediately forward your post to your followers on Threads. Heck, there's no guarantee they'll forward it at all, if it's something Meta doesn't want their users to see. Or maybe Meta's algorithm really likes a particular post you made, and it makes sure it's at the top of their users' feeds when they open the app. Who knows!

This type of manipulation of feeds isn't just a remote possibility - it's at the core of Meta's business model. Similarly, there's no guarantee that Meta will immediately send a Threads user's post to your server without delay, or even send it at all. Meta is capable of influencing the content going in and out of their servers. And given their history, tell me with a straight face that they wouldn't.

Alternately, let's say you don't follow anyone on Threads, and nobody on Threads follows you. The standard line of many protocol-adjacent folks is, 'there's no algorithm in Mastodon, so federating with Meta won't affect what you see, unless you follow Threads users'. But is this actually true?

First off, if you follow people who follow Threads users, they're sometimes going to boost a Threads post, so, odds are, you're going to end up with more posts on your feed that were pushed by Meta's algorithm, and less posts that were suppressed by it.

Second, you'll see replies to Threads posts, written by people you follow. This means that you're really likely to see more discussion of whatever topics (or specific posts!) that Meta's algorithm is pushing.

Third, if the people you follow get lots of engagement from Threads users by posting about specific topics, or posting in a certain style, you can bet they'll be more likely to keep posting about the same things, and in the same way. Engagement can be fun, after all. Did we mention that Threads already has over 50x the total number of users in the fediverse, and that what those users see is determined by Meta's algorithm? Huh.

These are all ways that what you see will be influenced by Meta's algorithm. But since you're not technically on their platform, I like to call this phenomenon 'algorithm creep'.

Oh, and there's another incredibly important consideration: there are a lot of people on the fediverse that are understandably concerned about their own safety when it comes to federation with a server that platforms prominent transphobes, racists, antisemites, and misogynists. For this reason, many people will want to become far less visible to Meta's userbase, whether that's leaving the fediverse, moving to a defederated server, or simply not posting about important aspects of themselves and their lives. Whichever one it is, we're all worse off for not having that visible diversity in our communities, and for not having the free and safe space for that diversity to be express itself.

Put it all together, and what have you got? The terrible result of rapacious corporate greed. The non-algorithmic/chronological, neutral mode of presentation that Mastodon provides is the exact thing that allows us to take away the control of our experience from malign central entities. But it can only do that if the other entities on the network do the same.

Interoperability isn't just about the protocol

So hopefully we can see it: Mastodon and Threads will soon be able to communicate with each other via the ActivityPub protocol, but true interoperability, the kind that is actually mutually beneficial to people, goes beyond protocols and includes social dynamics and power relations. The lack of algorithmic manipulation of your Mastodon feed is really the defining (non-)feature of the software. To federate with Threads is to be sucked into its gravitational pull of algorithmic manipulation, and undercut Mastodon's core mission of putting us back in control.

Mastodon and Threads are not interoperable, and they never can be. They exist for opposite purposes. Defederate Meta; be a part of the Free Fediverse.