• PabloDiscobar@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Meta won’t federate anyone. They don’t want to host illegal content on their servers, that would be an absolute PR disaster for them. And this is what will happen if they federate with a random instance. Even clean instances will want to play tricks on Meta if federated.

      They are the prototype of the mono instance federation. They want control. They want to attract the people leaving Twitter. I don’t think they care about us, what they want to avoid is that our instances become too big and start to offer an alternative.

  • kbity@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hopefully no credible Fediverse platform actually federates with their trojan horse. If we let Zuck, or anyone like him, become a major player in the ActivityPub world, pretty soon we’re going to end up right back where we started.

    • RadicalHomosapien@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Genuinely curious as I’m new to all of this, why would it matter? Isn’t that the whole point of the fediverse? If their spyware app interfacing with it is what gets the casual users into it who already have Meta’s spyware installed, you can still use the fediverse from whatever service you prefer, right?

      • CynicalStoic@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Here’s a pretty thorough explanation of why this Meta app is dangerous for the Fediverse.

        https://fediversereport.com/meta-plans-on-joining-the-fediverse-the-responses/

        I’m still trying to wrap my head around Fediverse concepts as well but the thing that stands out for me is that there is a history of private companies effectively killing open source projects.

        For us, the vulnerability is ActivityPub. If Meta begins “contributing” to a foundational Fediverse technology, they have the resources to extend the protocol in a way that benefits Meta only, at a pace that only a company with the resources of Meta can.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Honestly I think a lot of it is that the Fediverse (especially Mastodon) wants to remain a small community relatively isolated from regular social networks, and a very big instance would ruin that. It’s very similar to Usenet when AOL customers got access to it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September).

        Some people are worried about Meta having their data, but anything you post publicly in the Fediverse is, by definition, public. A whole heap of servers have your data, and even today some of the federated servers could be operated by large companies. How would you know? My Lemmy server is federating with over a thousand others… I don’t know who runs all of those or what they’re doing with the data…

        • Deref@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can’t be both a small community and replace for profit social networks. I thought the point of all this was the second one.

  • gentleman@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    @wrath@kbin.social Defederate with any instance Meta has infected - including any instance at Mastodon who thinks this is a good idea. I left FB years ago because of this and their boosting of the alt-right

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      kbin probably federates with over 1000 other instances by this point. Would you really review ownership of each one of them?

      • Eggyhead@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re right. Reviewing ownership of all instances might be a bit unreasonable.

        How about we just focus on the ones that stand out for things such as mass surveillance, conducting social experiments on their users, taking over markets, buying out competition, and influence upon genocidal political movements?

        Does that seem a little more manageable?