DrNeurohax

I don’t WANT to agree, but I kinda do.

We’re here because Reddit was shit on top shit, led by gaping anus. We all accept that Meta is the same.
We didn’t want Reddit profiting from our work. Meta will do the same, only more competently.

Defederation is useless at scale They can continually spin up new instances that act as spies and bridges to Meta’s area.
Once enough Meta bridge nodes are woven into the Fedi, they’ll be masked by a backchannel to mask the exchange/activity.

Someone plz tell me I’m wrong, but this is how I think things work in the background…

• Bob creates a Lemmy node - @Zucc1.ughfuckoff. It has 3 users and basically shops around until someone in lemmy.world’s sphere allows federation. Zucc1 looks like any random, small instance.
• Once federated, Zucc1 syncs to its connected Lemmy instances - for now there is no Meta connection.
• Zucc1 can then federate with a bunch of other instances, including Zucc2.
• This repeats for a few weeks, infiltrating Fedi. This could be happening now.
• A new set of Lemmy nodes spin up and federate only with a portion of the spy instances. The spy instances don’t respect the federation rules, distributing portions of the Fedi sync back to the Meta connected nodes, masking the source and destination.
• Once signed posts are received by the spy nodes, user names are swapped with a table synced by spy and bridge instances. @User1@T4server.threads becomes @User7@Zucc4.ughfuckoff.
  • The Threads user sees their message from @someone@lemmy.world (which can also be swapped if they worry Threads users care about any of this stuff).
  • The Lemmy user sees the message from @User@Zucc4.ughfuckoff.

Probably easy to combat when it’s one instance here and there. If it’s constant and automated, federating would have to be paused until the spies are weeded out and there’s a better detection strategy. If they get a big enough network going, they could all dip out at once, change identity, and refederate back in as the Fedi network flips out because of all the sync mismatches. Just more new nodes joining in. They have the source code, so they can act differently from other instances as long as it doesn’t cause problems.

Is this a realistic scenario or am I way off base? I feel like it has to be one of the two.

Replied to above.

My point is that this argument makes as much sense as what I wrote, so it’s encouraging the you think it’s ridiculous.

“Versus” is a valueless delineation separating two subjects. There are two groups: The people of the Fediverse and the people not in the Fediverse. Neither one is good or bad, and in fact, many are a part of BOTH. That self awareness cancels any perceived negativity. We’re all probably some level of “normie,” and I’ve never heard someone use that word without immediate laughter by all parties. Sure, maybe in the early 00s by grade school punks, but I don’t think anyone does or should care.

The point you’re actually making, without articulating it well, is the lack of terminology for federated groups. No one wants to say, “I’m a member of a select federated Lemmy and Kbin instances within the larger Fediverse.” You want an affirmative set of terms, so that delineation can be made; you want to say, “The X have this, and the not(X) have that.” From there you can get to value judgements, based on the expression of X, and I’ll recognize your concerns. The ridiculousness of those terms not existing makes it VERY hard to claim intentional negativity/harm because it simultaneously draws attention that group X in this case doesn’t have their shit together enough to come up with a nickname or shorthand.

“You’re better than us? What are you?”
“Well, you see, I’m a part of a federated network of…”
(Looks up - everyone left)

So, until someone comes up with some non-super-cringe terms for this wonderful mess, the discussion is a waste of everyone’s time. And until then, I suggest taking it on a case by case basis. If someone is offended, tell them that’s not intended because we don’t have OUR shit together, ask them what they prefer, and use that term around them.

I 100% agree that word is cringe and I’m totally into the fediverse for the long haul, but we have to address the pachyderm in the room: The word “Fediverse” is just as cringe.

I, … I’m sorry. I can read it in a document, but the second a human being types it, I can’t take it seriously. I don’t care if folks want to shorten it to something like the FI (Federated Instances). Yes, there are other uses of the word “federate”, but it immediately sounds like a federal intraweb domain or a group of Star Trek policy makers.

“Fediverse” is “netizen 2.0.”
“Fediverse” is “cruising on the information superhighway Pro.”
Please tell me I’m not alone in thinking this.

No no no, it’s stereotyping and prejudice when OTHER people do it to US. WE should tell THEM that THEY are US, and by saying this to OURSELVES we have said it to THEM, so that WE know that THEY know, but now THEY are a THEM again.

YOU don’t get it. WE get it. YOU should all be like US where there is no YOU and US, there is only the WE that is YOU and US, but thereis no YOU and US, there is only the WE that is YOU and US, but thereis no YOU and US, there is only the WE that is YOU and US, but thereis no YOU and US, there is only the WE that is YOU and US.

Simple. See? You don’t? But, YOU must because there is no…

So you’re saying there are people who DO use “normies” and people that DON’T use “normies”. These are not two groups of people. Shit, I just joined this thread, so that makes ME one of YOU, and there’s OTHERS that aren’t here. Are WE the elitists? Or are THEY the “normies”? YOU said there’s no there’s no US or THEM, so EVERYONE is talking in this thread. ANYONE not in this thread must not exist because I know I exist, so YOU thread posters must exist, but wait, that makes ME an US and YOU a THEM.

(I’m not trying to be snarky, but this argument is exactly as nonsensical.)