Fediverse

28040 readers

1 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!

Rules

Posts must be on topic.
Be respectful of others.
Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Poll: How should the Social Web Foundation engage with Meta? (infosec.exchange)

submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Social Web Foundation (SWF) is a new non-profit with a mission of "a growing, healthy, financially viable and multi-polar Fediverse”. In TechCrunch, Sarah Perez reported that SWF has "some backing" from Meta as well as Flipboard, Ghost, Mastodon, and others as well as a "large grant" from the Ford Foundation. "In total, SWF is closing in on $1 million in financial support."

One of the hot buttons in the discussion is SWF's relationship with Meta. So I set up a series of polls on Mastodon. Here are the options for this one -- I'm not sure how to do polls on Lemmy, so please leave your thoughts in the comments

SWF shouldn't engage with Meta at all
SWF should work with Meta occasionally, when it's necessary
SWF should work with Meta together often, but no formal relationship
SWF should have Meta as a partner, advisor, or some other formal relatoinship, but no funding
SWF should take funding from Meta, but no formal relationship
SWF should take funding from Meta and a formal relatiionship

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

I'm totally fine with the SWF engaging with Meta just like they would any other entity building software using ActivityPub.

Funding on the other hand is a different story. It sounds like Meta contributed to an overall fund in order to launch the SWF. OK, I suppose — but if there's specific funding down the road for some specific project or funding in some way which appears to influence decision-making on which projects to work on or how to approach them, that's when I have a huge problem with it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

They don't "need" the SWF. If Zuckerberg wanted to simply takeover the control of ActivityPub, they could just use their existing devrel people that work with the W3C and push the changes directly at the "authoritative" organization.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If Zuckerberg wanted to simply takeover the control of ActivityPub, they could just

Gah, don't give them ideas! 😨

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

My point is that we should take their current approach as a good thing.

I"m not saying that we should blindly trust them, but I am saying that if we want corporations to Do The Right Things, then it's a lot better to let them have a seat at the table and participate with the community than to simply ostracize them forever because of their past wrongdoings.

load more comments (2 replies)