Is kbin.social anti-corporation? Should it be?
I'm seeing discussions on other instances about how a "federated" corporate instance should be handled, i.e. Meta, or really any major company.
What would kbin.social's stance be towards federating/defederating with a Meta instance?
Or what should that stance be?
You're viewing a single thread.
I don’t think there should be blind hostility but it should be clear that any hint of embrace, extend, extinguish will result in hostile actions like defederation. I also don’t think targeted ad tech companies share the goals of the Fediverse. I wouldn’t be bothered if instances had sponsors (as in, “/Kbin is made possible by support from Cloudflare”) like all non-profit media. But any sort of targeted ads based on user activity/data should be ruled out as a way to fund the metaverse.
I think we have already seen hints of "embrace, extend, extinguish" with the confidential meeting they invited the Fosstodon dev to.
@codybrumfield Well, we already have Meta's off-the-record invitation. I'd consider that to be a hint of shenanigans!
But any sort of targeted ads based on user activity/data should be ruled out as a way to fund the metaverse.
i disagree, i think the whole point of the fediverse is to give the user the choice or freedom to use whichever instance they wish. If that is an instance with targeted ads and the user's okay with that, whats the harm? Its not like other's are having their data sold, only that user is. You wouldn't have to use meta's instance to communicate with meta users.
Taking the swarm of reddit users who've converted to kbin/lemmy has already created much more diverse content/communities here as opposed to only tech minded people using the platform. Meta officially bringing their 1-2 billion users over would have an even bigger impact.
The problem is that if I want to communicate with Meta users, then my content gets copied onto Meta's servers, just because of how the fediverse works. Everything is a local copy first, then gets federated. So if I reply to someone who is a Meta user, in order for them to see my comment it must get copied to Meta servers. The only way to stop this is to defederate with them (which means the server you are on would not send anything to Meta servers).
The problem is that if I want to communicate with Meta users, then my content gets copied onto Meta's servers
whats the issue with this
Are you familiar with the embrace, extend, extinguish process referenced by the top commenter? Just wondering if this comment is made with understanding of that process.
Personally, I don't want Meta's money and army of paid developers to be able to make "surface level" improvements that incentivize non-technical users to join their instance, while hiding an increasingly hostile and profit-driven framework underneath.
Here's a blog post passed around a lot today on the issue. I'm not totally sold one way or another, so if you have insight I'd love to learn more.