I'm glad, meta has no place in the fediverse.
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.
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.
Thank you!!!! Say NO to META's disregard of privacy!!!
War is coming. Thank you for taking a strong stance now rather than later.
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."
Gruber's position is somewhere between 'internally inconsistent' and 'distressingly naive'; quote:
On point 2, Iβm 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?
better to just keep growing slowly rather than having massive capital and quick improvements only to be killed later by Meta.
make sure that #ActivityPub loses to the Bluesky protocol
Like we're playing Team Deathmatch and have been placed on Team HashtagActivityPub so we've gotta do anything possible to beat Team Bluesky.
As someone who actually kinda likes protocols themselves, I still have to wonder why anyone would care about a protocol. Users don't use protocols. Users should not have to care about protocols, let alone fight over their "relevance" (which apparently is defined as "either it's the most popular one or it's NOTHING").
Also, why must everything be as big as humanly possible? Every single thing must be one enormous, monolithic pile of people. Can't we have a nice thing over here and just let Facebook "win" (which is kindof an asinine concept here) and be "the big one that 'everybody' uses?"
Awesome!
I salute you!
Really pleased to hear this. I will be staying on Beehaw for the foreseeable future, I'm on the same page as the admins.
Meta was one of the killers of democracy. No one should ever affiliate with it.
I donβt 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 wouldnβt be an issue to make a compatible handle that can communicate there.
Thank goodness.
Great, fuck Meta, fuck Zuck.
Try saying that five times fast.
kudos
How do we even know that they're not already running instances? Why would they start announcing it, especially after the response?
This has to do with Project92, not just with Facebook hosting Mastodon instances. I wouldn't put it past them to discretely host instances to gather data, but we can't see them, and therefore we can't defend against them (and mass-defederation of potential instances is a recipe for disaster).
@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.