Skip Navigation

You're viewing a single thread.

100 comments

  • Meta is going to do Meta things whether we make it difficult for them or not. "Preemptively" saying no one who dares use a Meta tool is welcome in the "Fediverse" is guilt until proven innocence and collective punishment

    I find it very hypocritical to say, in one breath, "we need open standards and federated sites so that no one party can be a gatekeeper" and in the next "no, Meta, we as gatekeepers have decided we don't like you and you're not welcome here."

    If you block all of Meta just because they're Meta, not only do you punish countless potential valued contributors who have done no wrong, you also embolden Meta to engage with the Fediverse in less legitimate, more underhanded ways. Which they will do, as I said, no matter what blocks are put in their way.

    Let's focus on building affirmatively and consciously the community we want instead of walking around with chips on our shoulders. If bad actors appear, they can be dealt with individually without banning large parts of the rest of the world.

    • This feels a little bit like a "corporations are people" spin, intended or not. But I don't think that's benefited society all that much, in past.

    • I would counter that Meta has used their “tool” to in essence to support a genocide and that makes them untrustworthy.

      As for having open standards with no gatekeepers… that point is a false equivalency. We have open standard like encryption, but that doesn’t mean one should go post their private ssh keys online. There are bad actors in this world and Meta Inc is one of them.

      • Do you believe people who use Meta tools are complicit in crimes against humanity? If so, I've got some bad news about the Internet.

        Give people a chance. Who knows; maybe some of them will drop the Meta tool and pick up the one you prefer.

        • Meta is not a person and Meta as a corporation (and the people who run it) are complicit in war crimes.

          As for their users (which I am not conflating with Meta, the corporate entity), there is nothing stopping them from creating a Lemmy account.

          Again, Meta is not a person and Meta is not it’s users. There is nothing wrong with many of the people who use Meta products.

          Edited: I apologize, I removed part of the comment that was on retrospect, uncalled for.

          • I'm saying if a good and decent person uses the Meta tool to interact, they should not face summary justice for doing so. If they use the Meta tool to abuse, harass, be an asshole? Yes, ban them. If they use it to introduce themselves gently to this community, learn its ways, become a valued or even trusted member... why deny them that opportunity simply for what is really just an unfortunate choice of app?

            We agree that Meta is not good. Let there be no dispute about that.

            Edit: removed response to portion of previous post that was itself removed. #GoodFaith

            • My take is that it's a Trojan horse meant to handle a multiple potential competitors, the Fediverse being one of them. Meta tries to either take over or kill competitors: they purchased Instagram for fear of competing with it; they purchased Whatsapp; they considered purchasing TikTok and then when they didn't, they instead funded the push to malign it and ban it. This is all in addition to all the other things they've done (like manipulating teens' emotional states without their or their parents' consent, building shadow profiles for non-Facebook users, using a free data usage counter as a Trojan horse to figure out what apps people were using and then purchase one of the popular ones... WhatsApp, and the previously mentioned alleged warcrimes to name a few).

              We agree that Meta Inc. has no moral scruples and buckets of money. Where we disagree is that I think that not only does the corporation have no moral scruples, I think they actively use their lack of morality to snuff out competition using what ever means possible and then shape opinion to make a profit. If Threads were just a client like Memmy, Jerboa, or Tusky it would be different, but it's not.

              Edit: added a clause changed some formatting.

              • Sure, they are fiercely anti-competitive and seek to eliminate their competition. Such is the nature of the publicly held corporation, whose literal only purpose is to maximize profit to their shareholders. To the extent that Meta sees their competitors as stealing their potential profit, they will and in fact must fight. It cannot be helped.

                I believe this community is strong enough to resist attempts to snuff it out. I believe the technology is well-developed and well-situated to survive such attempts. Those who choose to use it will continue to use it, whatever Meta does. Those who see us as a bunch of misfit losers who just want to be different will continue to hold that view, whatever Meta does. I think the opportunity lies in finding the people who want something different than what's on offer from the "mainstream" Internet, showing them what we can do, and giving them the chance to join us. And I think cutting off Meta, as defensively or strategically well-intended as it might be, hurts that.

                I'm an optimist because being a pessimist drives me into dangerous depression. I understand not everyone shares my optimism. There are already plenty of people who have made the decision to cut off Meta from the servers they maintain, and will not reconsider. That is unfortunate, but that too also cannot be helped. I hope SDF won't go that route. If they do, I'll still stay here; the people I want to communicate with are here. But I just hope we don't cut off people simply for being on Meta's app. That's all.

                • I'm about to step away from this thread because I've made my point (and everyone has probably made up their mind) but I want to go back to one thing I said.

                  Let’s focus on building affirmatively and consciously the community we want

                  We have an opportunity here the likes of which we haven't seen for at least a decade, if not longer. For too long now we've built our communities on platforms provided by the likes of Twitter, Reddit, and (yes) Meta. Now, we not only have the tools to "homestead" these places ourselves, we have what is increasingly a critical mass of people interested in exploring alternatives to the corporate social media world. How many of us have said "well, I don't like Twitter but I still have a Twitter account because that's where all my friends are"? (or, if not Twitter, then Facebook, Reddit, etc.)

                  We're now starting to see people wanting to get out of those silos and into something less geared towards profit and marketing and surveillance. Some people see this as a threat to the carefully-restricted (I will not say "curated" - oops, I guess I just did) communities they have created here. Other people see it as an opportunity to get more people, more voices, into these communities and conversations. It should be clear by now which side I come down on; how about you?

                  I will admit that Meta is not the ideal vector for people to find us. If I had my choice, they'd stick to developing their proprietary platforms and leave us alone. But I don't have my choice; they see a different opportunity than I do, and they're pursuing it. But it still means there are people potentially joining us that could be really cool, really interesting, really nice to have as part of our circle. Yes, it means there will be bad actors. That's life. There is no good without bad. I suppose some people feel there will be more bad than good to come of this. I don't think that way.

                  I'm reminded of the discipline of Appreciative Inquiry. Its point is to engage stakeholders in decision-making, but to do so from a position of appreciating good things and building upon them to create more good things, as opposed to seeing bad things and trying to correct them. As the Wikipedia article says, it is a distinction between "a Mystery to be Embraced" and "a Problem to be Solved."

                  I hope it's clear by now that I fall on the Mystery to be Embraced side of the fence. This is an opportunity, not a crisis. There are ways to make sure our philosophy succeeds; we just need to find them. I don't think we'll find them by considering Meta users as unwelcome. Some of you come down on the Problem to be Solved side, and your proposed solutions clash with mine. That's OK. We have all been heard, as we should be, as we are all stakeholders. I hope some of you will join me in the opportunistic view, but that's not for me to decide.

                  I am now going to step away and let others have the floor, so to speak. Be well.

                  • Comparing to "homesteading" is an interesting choice. Perhaps to you the term bears connotations of freedom, community, adventure, creativity or nostalgia. But a more comprehensive view would be that the state used extreme violence to appropriate land and natural resources from an existing population. Homesteading was the subsequent privatization of the nominally public lands. It was privatized specifically into the hands of people who it was thought would be loyal and suitable, if sometimes remote, subjects of the state. Their loyalty was reinforced by arranging things so that the settlers were perpetually engaged in relationships of domination either directly or implicitly, with the prior residents of the land and other conquered people.

                    I guess I am wondering.... to follow your analogy... you think you/we are the settlers in this situation? Seems like Meta is the state/military. Their users are the homesteaders and the libre community is the historic but already weakened pre existing communities.

                    Just like so called "pioneers", meta users as people can have all kinds of good intentions at the outset however the situation is one of inherent tensions. The territory is vast and we are in a relatively weakened position. Therefor, we unable to defend it sufficiently to prevent incursions, even if we were all in agreement about wanting to. The conquering institutions will enter and they will bring people along under various pretenses, with messaging and structures that favor the extension of their power. Some settlers will defect but most will just try to make it work in the context they find themselves--- like people always do. Structurally, we are in conflict even though as individuals I don't think anyone bears particular ill will towards the other. And in both the historical and contemporary situations, the groups are not completely distinct and clear cut. Humans instantly become intertwined with one another when the opportunity arises so there is plenty of intermingling and relationships.

                    However if the sight of platoons and caravans approaching in the distance leads to apprehension, the ominous feeling is justified. We must represent our own interests, and what are arguably the broader interests of humanity, using tactics from diplomacy to guerilla. We should be vigilant in self defense and not wait til its too late to engage whatever potentially effective means are available to us. I am not sure what those are.

                    (In case it is not clear, I hope I am not read as flippantly comparing anything happening to lemmy as equivalent to the horrors of genocide. This situations has the violence dial turned waaaaay down. However there are certain narrative elements that bear a similarity so I wanted to expand upon the analogy to colonization as a positive thing at all, and one that we are on the winning side of.)

                  • But it still means there are people potentially joining us that could be really cool, really interesting, really nice to have as part of our circle.

                    And when they are ready to explore, those people can use the many available tools not built by shitty corporations with shitty intentions and many, many, many shitty users.

                • There's being an optimist, and there's being a pollyanna.

                  Your optimism about Meta is badly misplaced.

    • If you block all of Meta just because they’re Meta, not only do you punish countless potential valued contributors who have done no wrong,

      Bullshit. There's no "punishment" whatsoever. Those users are free to open accounts on fediverse servers at any time.

      you also embolden Meta to engage with the Fediverse in less legitimate, more underhanded ways.

      You mean like anointing a few heads of big instances as representatives of fedi and trying to get them to sign NDAs? Shit like that?

      Let’s focus on building affirmatively and consciously the community we want

      This is literally the point of pre-emptive blocking. Meta is an existential threat to the quality of this place, period point blank.

      People, individual people, built Fedi out of nothing. It's our party, we quite like it, and we can pre-disinvite entities with an enormous track record of shitty behavior whenever we want.

      If you want to interact with such entities and the typical user that comes with, by all means, find servers that federate. It will drive a netsplit, and that sucks, but it's also working as intended.

      I just hope SDF is on the right side of the split. Fuck Facebook and every single thing they stand for.

100 comments