Amazing. Thank you!
Chat
Relaxed section for discussion and debate that doesn't fit anywhere else. Whether it's advice, how your week is going, a link that's at the back of your mind, or something like that, it can likely go here.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
Thank you!!!! Say NO to META's disregard of privacy!!!
You can't become a billionaire without being incredibly evil. They are literally working to kill off all life on the planet.
As for giving them the benefit of the doubt? Seriously? Anyone who suggests that has got to be getting a nice paycheck from the plutocrats.
I'm not shure, there are a few good arguments against plain blocking of Meta.
This article is mostly against federating
https://privacy.thenexus.today/should-the-fediverse-welcome-surveillance-capitalism/
it does highlight contra's:
John Gruber describes the Anti-Meta Pact as "petty and deliberately insular" and suggests that the whole point of ActivityPub is to turn social networking into something more akin to email, which he describes as "truly open."1
Tristan Louis says "The anti-Meta #Fedipact can only achieve one thing: make sure that #ActivityPub loses to the Bluesky protocol."2
Dan Gillmor suggests that "preemptively blocking them -- and the people already using them -- from your instance guarantees less relevance for the fediverse."
better to just keep growing slowly rather than having massive capital and quick improvements only to be killed later by Meta.
Gruber's position is somewhere between 'internally inconsistent' and 'distressingly naive'; quote:
On point 2, I’m fine with starting Facebook with two strikes against it. Put them on a short leash. They start fucking around, Mastodon instances should start de-federating from their product.
So he agrees that the first time Facebook does anything wrong we should promptly de-federate from them, but somehow seems to think that they... won't? Facebook being allowed to federate is contingent on them being absolutely perfect model citizens, when Facebook have never been model citizens of any group they've ever participated in?
The goal of the fediverse was never to be "relevant" in corporate capital terms.
The goal was for us all to be able to use it.
Being embrace-extend-extinguished would not achieve what most of us are here for.
Meta was one of the killers of democracy. No one should ever affiliate with it.
I salute you!
I don’t know if I have a settled opinion for or against defederating from Meta instances, but I know enough to say I absolutely respect the decision to.
I may appreciate more exposure to federating social media, but I also appreciate that Meta has a problematic track record. Besides, my shifting away from Reddit has me realizing that juggling accounts is not as difficult as I thought. If I end up having a reason to get on a Meta instance, it wouldn’t be an issue to make a compatible handle that can communicate there.
Really pleased to hear this. I will be staying on Beehaw for the foreseeable future, I'm on the same page as the admins.
War is coming. Thank you for taking a strong stance now rather than later.
Awesome!
kudos
Thank goodness.
Try saying that five times fast.
Good shit
Great, fuck Meta, fuck Zuck.
How do we even know that they're not already running instances? Why would they start announcing it, especially after the response?
@alyaza I am conflicted on this. While I feel like it's probably the right thing to do as Meta would just destroy the fediverse if it entered it, it makes me uncomfortable that this network that is supposed to be so open and connected with each other can be so easily and glibly made into what is essentially yet another privately controlled website.
Who says it's "supposed to be [fully] connected?" Who gets to decide for everyone that no one is allowed to block, no instance is permitted to separate or shape its own view of the network? What's the difference between what you want and Reddit? One solid mass of "everyone must be mashed together at all times and nothing may be done to protect against harmful parts of the network" seems to betray the point of federation far more than some instance(s) blocking others or just straight-up forming their own clique (in the graph theory sense) or separate network.
Basically my thought here is: defederation is the point of federation or else it would just be distributed hosting.
This has always been the reason I don't believe in distributed models of social media. Federation also means defederation and that's good.
Glad to hear it. Over the years, Meta has shown that they don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. They’d have to prove themselves, which I suspect they are able (but 100% not willing) to do.