Right now the fediverse is nipping at the heels of the silos.

They know we are here, and they perceive us as a threat. We know this from leaked emails from facebook.

That said, they could attack us in an oblique manner with any number of poisoned waterhole attacks.

Earlier today someone predicted one or more of those platforms just integrate activitypub and crush us by incorporating us.

Another pointed at the potential for procedurally generated instances that just harvest data, or overwhelm our ability to suspend all of the instances they throw up.

When these attacks are adapted to... they'll get concerned, and will try to frame us as part of "the dark web(tm)"...

That's how we'll know we're winning.

@TheGibson

I'm interested in brainstorming immune system defenses

beyond our strength as actually real people who can tell the difference between fake and person, usually pretty obvious

@Food

I am interested in this as well.

I feel like some sort of new instance registry may be necessary if we see these sorts of co-opting efforts occurring...

Like a low speed probationary period or something...

@TheGibson @Food
>Instance registry

>looks at eris.Berkeley.EDU
>looks at Q-line
>looks at EFNet

history likes to repeat itself, doesn't it? :P

@Wolf480pl @Food

I am not necessarily suggesting it as the solution... but I don't know how we make ourselves resilient to abuse of the open system without some sort of whitelisting.

That said, yes... we tend to repeat ourselves.🤔

@TheGibson @Food

IMO, to a certain extent, this is a question of what our goals are.

Is our goal to have a federated network which _everyone_ can join with their instance, then we should allow Facebook et al. join us, and we should work on ways to make sure that the joining of Facebook won't cause harm to people on other instances.

If our goal is to have an isolated safe space away from mainstream socnets, then whitelisting would be a good approach, but it wouldn't be "Fediverse" anymore.

@Wolf480pl @TheGibson @Food if FB decided to federate, I doubt any existing fediverse instance could survive without blocking FB. I don’t see this is a philosophical question, but rather a technical and economic one. FB probably has 3 orders of magnitude more users and 4 to 5 orders of magnitude more traffic than does the fediverse. Even if pleroma/mastodon/etc could scale to that level of traffic without major changes, it would be too expensive to operate.

@jerry @TheGibson @Food
Only if people from your instance follow people from FB. And only to the extent they follow people from FB.

AFAIK, if people from my instance follow total of 5 people from .social, then my instance will only receive posts of 5 people from .social, not all posts from everyone on .social.
(if it's not the case then the protocol is terribly broken)

Now, do you think people from your instance would suddenly follow everyone from FB?

@jerry @TheGibson @Food
And even if people from your instance followed a lot of people from FB, that'd mean they'd follow the same amount of people if all of them were on Fediverse instead of FB. So you'd get the same amount of traffic.

If fedi can't deal with the traffic your users want from FB, it means fedi is not a good replacement for FB.

Follow

@Wolf480pl @jerry @Food

It's not the raw traffic necessarily. It's the individual servers being hosted at the cost of the admin that wouldn't be able to afford the cost of running.

And/or they just pump trash into the fediverse by procedurally generating instances and flooding everything.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
hackers.town

A bunch of technomancers in the fediverse. Keep it fairly clean please. This arcology is for all who wash up upon it's digital shore.