🖤 ANTI-META FEDI PACT 🖤
fedipact.online

This is a bit political but i feel this should be looked at. Whatever it’s on on the Lemmy instance or the Mastodon instances.

My main concern is about the concept of Embrase Extend Extinguish they could use.

  • Crashdoom@pawb.socialMEnglish
    0·
    1 year ago

    EDIT: I’ve gone ahead and posted this as an announcement on furry.engineer and pawb.fun. I’d strongly encourage our community, both here and on Mastodon please provide me with your opinions and thoughts.

    Given it seems like it’s predominantly blocking Meta’s new “Project 92” initiative[1] which is an ActivityPub-based Twitter clone that could theoretically integrate with other services like Lemmy and Mastodon.

    I’m personally against preemptively blocking them, despite my hatred for Facebook / Meta / whatever Mark Zuckerberg decides to call the company today. I may consider a silence action to avoid any excessive flooding / spamming of the federated timeline, especially if their rules don’t align with ours on key topics, such as advertising and misinformation.

    • Sean RABBITT@furry.engineer
      0·
      1 year ago

      @crashdoom This will be an unpopular opinion, but I don’t think a defederation / block is warranted - yet. I’m of “a certain age” when I was on the internet when AOL joined in and thus started the slur of AOLers who were considered subhuman. Completely unwarranted, and sure some were noobs, but weren’t we all?

      Not everyone has access to the same level of technology, and for them, using a service like FB is the simple way to interact.

      Let them join, participate, and let’s see what happens.

    • kadei 🐀@furry.engineer
      0·
      1 year ago

      @crashdoom @brodokk

      I’m a bit late but: strongly against pre-emptive blocking

      defederation should be a poweful & last-resort moderation tool (since it’s taking agency away from users). obviously it is justified in some cases (gab, truthsocial etc), but we’re nowhere near the point at which blocking meta seems justifiable.

      the data-harvesting justification just seems confused (meta care about building profiles of people they can show adverts to, they dgaf about people on other fedi instances)

      • Crashdoom@pawb.socialM
        2·
        1 year ago

        Not late! We’re still reviewing new comments as they come in to determine if the sentiment remains the same or changes within our community. I did go into more detail on our rationale for stating we’ll defederate from them at https://pawb.social/post/111692, but it boils down to the rampant abuse Facebook permits on their existing platforms that would inevitably boil over for our team to deal with.

        Also, from recent news, it seems that Facebook won’t even allow outbound federation initially anyway, so we’re really unsure if we’ll even need to end up blocking them in the first place.

  • Breve@pawb.socialEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    As much as I dislike Meta, I don’t think we have enough information on this to make a sound decision yet. If they were to participate in the fediverse following the open standards and with moderation that complies with our instance’s rules, then I can’t make any argument against it. The fact that they could just launch an instance like everyone else but instead are trying to get other instances “on board” some secretive project with an NDA really doesn’t bode well though.

  • Cas@pawb.socialEnglish
    0·
    1 year ago

    I’m of the opinion that we should defederate right away from Meta’s service. I don’t see any advantage to giving them a chance as their whole modus operandi is collecting and harvesting user data. The whole NDA stuff really rubbed me the wrong way.