Skip Navigation
Beehaw Support @beehaw.org darius_drake @beehaw.org

What's Beehaw's opinion on Facebook doing NDAed meetings with fedi admins/devs?

fedipact.online

So, recently some fediverse admins (mostly Mastodon) and the founder of Mastodon, Eugen Rochko (Gargron), where contacted by Meta/Facebook for an NDA meeting. We know nothing about it, but we're pretty sure that it was about this project92 thing that Meta/Facebook is creating to "compete" with Twitter.

So a lot of Mastodon admins already singed a pact to immediately block any Meta/Facebook activity in the fediverse as soon as it comes up. My Mastodon instance, fosstodon.org hasn't singed that pact and I'm pretty worried.

The following image is an screenshot of Gargron and dansup (creator of Pixelfed) talking about this. These posts were deleted, even from the wayback machine.

12
12 comments

  • Nobody in their right mind trusts Meta. What they call a “meeting” is nothing more than an unpaid consultation. They want to pick brains for free. That’s all.

    What do the invitees get out of it? Some carefully chosen information that may not even be true, which (thanks to the NDA) they won’t be able to talk about anyway? A mediocre lunch? A demonstration of Meta’s “awe-inspiring” metaverse technology? Please.

  • Sounds troubling. But not all of their actions turn out to be completely nefarious, and this could represent a genuine effort to contribute to the next generation of infrastructure. The emerging network protocol appears to offer an opportunity for both non-profit and commercial ventures.

    • I'm not particularly interested in anything that Meta/Facebook has ever created. Everything that this company has made or touched has been horrible/dangerous/terrible for everyone and I don't think that this isn't the case. Also that article that you linked is behind a paywall ._.

      • I get this is the fediverse and we're supposed to hate big tech and all, but this "everything Facebook has done is evil" is objectively wrong and such a Reddit take. Facebook's biggest problem has always been the people that use their products spreading hate and misinformation and their lack of moderation at their current scale, a problem that every single social media has hit, including the fediverse (i.e. Beehaw defederating with lemmy.world). And honestly, with governments refusing to take a heavy stance on regulating misinformation should it really be up to tech companies on what can and can't be shared on their platforms? Then there's data leaks like Cambridge Analytica, but that was a ticking time bomb, because data privacy back then wasn't a concern anywhere. I've worked in the data industry for a decade now and it was the fuckin wild west back then lol.

        And then there's the good shit they've actually done. The article you replied to (not behind a paywall for me for some reason?) talks about how they open sourced their LLM AI for research purposes. Their data center designed were open sourced to help other data centers hit net zero carbon emissions (they're a huge contributor to the Open Compute Project). They've open sourced a ton of tools/languages as well.

        WhatsApp is still fully end to end encrypted messaging and they're pushing the same on messenger now (their WhatsApp site even has a whole section for local law enforcement telling them they can't provide message data, a huge plus for Americans given recent abortion regulations).

        Their targeted advertising has rightfully gotten a lot of scrutiny, but there's a lot of misinformation behind it, like "Facebook is listening to my calls" and "Facebook is reading my message data", which they've denied and there's no actual evidence of. I have family with small businesses that wouldn't have made it through the pandemic without their advertising platform.

        I don't think that they have any place in the fediverse, honestly I'd be surprised if they wanted in on it anyways, but in my mind they aren't any more evil than any other corporation and the "Facebook is straight evil" attitude is just an attempt for Redditors to feel superior about their social media corporation choice.

        If I were to guess this meeting was probably a job offer if anything lol.

        Edit: Lol scratch that last bit, looks like Meta is coming to the fediversee - https://reb00ted.org/tech/20230310-meta-activitypub/

    • Keep in mind XMPP had similar sorts of activity back when chat apps were the rage, and in the end the protocol was added to Google Talk (now dead), AIM (now removed), Facebook (now removed), and Skype (now removed). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMPP#Non-native_deployments

      I suspect existing orgs will want to contribute just as long as it takes to steal users and build a garden, that they can then wall off.

      • The Silicon Valley way of doing things is "growth at any cost". Of course Meta wants in on what might turn out to be the next big thing. Of course they want to use money and power to dominate the protocol, insert all sorts of monetization, and ruin the whole thing. And when it doesn't work out because they've done the same dumb shit that already ruined Facebook and Reddit the protocol will have been destroyed and rendered useless. Meta goes back to Facebook and Instagram while the entire Fediverse project becomes defunct.

        This is the history of these companies. Thankfully "fediverse" is not something Meta can just outright buy and then destroy, but they can still throw their weight around with cash and the enshittification will quickly ensue. The Fediverse needs to resist. It's hard to say no to money, but VC capital is what is destroying the internet. We need to do this differently if we want it to succeed.

  • Only my personal opinion. Seems very odd that they would sign an NDA. The deal is that when two companies meet it is more common that both companies will say that they do not want to exchange confidential information. There might be exceptions to that... but generally one should always say NO. Then only consider if there is a very good reason.

    Other thing I would say is that NDAs have a scope. So you cannot really evaluate the NDA unless you read the document and know the scope. Could have been very limited scope.

12 comments