The best case scenario of letting Meta in is neutrality. Far more likely is then actively destroying stuff. Remember, their motto is move fast and break things
The best case scenario of letting Meta in is neutrality. Far more likely is then actively destroying stuff. Remember, their motto is move fast and break things
Carighan@lemmy.world 6 months ago
So what are they going to do?
The whole “Oh they’ll microsoft it!”-narrative is clearly false already. As plenty people said the last time someone posted that sensationalist “how to kill the fediverse” (or so) blog post already, this is not about Meta trying to “kill” the fediverse. If anything, the opposite. This is them Mozilla-ing it, using it as a defense against new regulations. They can even point to instances defederating en masse as “See? We tried! They’re all blocking us, so it’s not our fault this cross-compatibility isn’t working.” and then in the future use that as a defense against further attempts to open up walled gardens. They tried, the supposedly “open” side actively blocked it, now the other side has to move before they try again.
People misunderstand the actually extremely obvious reason they’re doing this. There’s also an easy reason they’re dragging their feet so much: They don’t want to. But they have to. So they promise they’ll federate, actively hope they get blocked (see above), and only actually do it last-second to avoid issues with new legislation.
wetnoodle@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 months ago
mastodon.online/…/111585528118111249
Zuck has been refining his unethical business model for decades, they aren’t joining activitypub to be a team player
Carighan@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Which I never said. Is it required to leave reading comprehension at the door when joining discussions about Meta? Because 'hur dur meta evul" is the extend of allowed specificity?
There’s nuance to evil.
businessfish@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 months ago
your point about them trying to federate as a defense against new regulations is one i hadn’t considered before. however, that doesn’t reduce the potential harm of federating with threads. facebook/meta have proven at practically every possible chance that they are not to be trusted with even the most inconsequential of things and should be avoided by anyone smart enough to recognize this.
it sounds to me like you are suggesting that federating with threads will prevent them from having that out of “see? we tried”, but i feel that cooperating with facebook/meta in any way is a compromise on my morals that i simply can’t justify.
i’d love to hear what potential benefits you (or anyone else who wants to contribute) believe federating with threads will bring to us other than a ton of users from a different ecosystem, as the discourse around this has been pretty all over the place recently and i think we need more measured opinions on this.
RainfallSonata@lemmy.world 6 months ago
So naive.
Carighan@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Thinking everything can be reduced to a DnD like morality matrix? Yeah I agree, that’s pretty naive. Hence like I said, people think of this in far too simple terms.
Thief_of_Crows@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
Who is going to be swayed by a bunch of randos on the Internet blocking an obviously evil company from joining them? Congress? They’ll just buy the votes for whatever they need. I know nothing about this topic, but it is very obvious that letting an evil company associate with the federal can only make things worse. They’re a bad actor, ergo, we should not do what they want.