1y ago

Has there been any talk of lemmy.sdf.org preemptivly defederating from Meta/Threads?

You're viewing a single thread.

100 comments

I guess I don't understand why we would be lenient with a corporation that has actively destroyed the modern internet for profits, blatantly violates user privacy, etc etc.
The topic of defederation seems to really make people want to break out their soap boxes to talk about open access and free love, despite you know... the real world being real, and corpos willing to shit on your good thing for a few bucks.
- Remember, Facebook literally facilitated ethnic cleansing as a result of their techbro "move fast and break things" philosophy and their disinterest in paying for content mods with knowledge of local languages.
  Meta doesn't give a fuck about anyone here or anything we've built. Mark Zuckerberg wants power and money and to push his weird bloodless McDonalds-ized vision of what the Internet should be on every single person on this planet.
  Fuck that, and fuck any sort of cooperation with it.
  I made the decision to leave shitty corporate platforms for a reason. The people I'd like to follow or interact with who still only use such platforms can come to their decision in their own time.
  I am not interested in selling out my values, nor am I interested in enduring a tsunami of bottom-of-the-barrel interaction with average Meta users, in the name of interoperability. Meta made the choice to be a shitty entity with shitty values that builds shitty things. I don't feel like being covered in shit.
- Allowing an org to federate is not being lenient, it is how federation works. Defederating should be done to protect the federation from a node causing harm to the federation--not preemptively in my opinion.
  
  So let a known criminal into your home, until they commit a crime? Wouldn't not letting the known criminal into your home be the safer, more protective route?
  
  I think a house isn't the best comparison here, as a house isn't a public space, whereas the Fediverse is. A better comparison might be a town square or a park. Anyone is welcome to be there, but if they do something bad, or it becomes obvious that they are going to do something bad, then they can be removed from that space. Otherwise they should be allowed to exist in that space.
  
  The counterargument to that (I'm not taking a stance on it, but I get why others would) is "it's already obvious, look at their past history and what they've already done just within the past few days".
  
  Facebook will cause harm by its very presence.
  In any event, people with your opinion may end up in one fediverse "neighborhood," and people with my opinion will end up in another.
  I'm fine with that, as the "neighborhood" I end up in will have a lot less inane garbage everywhere.
- I question if cutting them off would actually hurt them that much. Like, it would hurt, but not in a project-ending way. It's far better IMO to use the prospect as encouragement for them to not be openly disruptive in the future.
  
  Hurting Meta shouldn't be the goal. Not providing direct access for Meta tentacles to the userbase should be.
  
  Hmm. Are you worried more about our data being used, or us being lured into a proprietary service?
  
  I won't kid myself that our data will be used either way. What I'm concerned about the most might be the negative attention that Meta will bring to federation. I have little doubt government regulation and strangulation will follow.
  If my understanding is correct, it also means that other instances will be footing part of the bill and doing the legwork to propagate and extend Meta's spiderweb?
  
  Yeah, I don't actually know the details about how Threads is supposed to work. I should look into it.
  
  I'm guilty as well.
  One thing that did occur to me just now, is how Meta's current platforms are the focus of gov pressure to censor free speech and thought crime, under the guise of public safety. What happens when this new platform federates? I think it'd be naive not to expect that stink to follow it. I have a sneaking suspicion Meta will filter content that doesn't adhere to their own TOS, so does the blame shift to the rest of the fediverse?
  Lots of open questions, but the whole thing stinks, IMO.
  
  If clueless people in Washington/Westminster/Brussels/whatever make laws that censor the Internet, they will do so, and they will almost certainly apply, no matter what Meta does. Obviously it's worth fighting these attempts, but I don't think it really has anything to do with Meta.
  If Meta filters stuff that they think exposes them to Bad Things For A Corporation To Be Exposed To, that is all the more reason to keep things open to Meta users who seek an alternative.
  
  I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I do understand where you're coming from-- I just think that it's more parts optimistic than realistic.
  
  If federation takes off even the government won't really be able to gently censor it, though. They might stomp and complain but short of breaking down a server room door there's little they can do, and the only things that get that treatment right now in the West are child porn and stolen credit card numbers.
  They could basically close off the internet like Cuba or to a much lesser degree China, but closed internets/intranets tend to suck, and then they're in the awkward position of either rubber-stamping adult websites or banning them, which straight up won't fly anytime soon.
  
  The only thing it could hurt is us, if everyone defederates people on threads won't even have a chance to be exposed to other parts of the fediverse, making it even easier for Meta to execute EEE
  
  Exclusion breeds interest. Nobody cares about going to Mcdonald's but there's years long waiting lists for multi Michelin star restaurants.

100 comments