This is a dangerous type of question as it implies we need a reason to add federation. Instead of being federated being the default state, hence the question would be about benefits of defederation.
And like I said above, it’s not like there isn’t potential benefits to that. But it’s important to keep in mind that not only might we be misinterpreting why Meta is adding federation (I’ll stick to my explanation, it’s not about the actual federation it’s about pre-empting regulation) we might end up making their use-case stronger (“we tried to add interoperability, no one else was interested, so that’s why we aren’t doing it” might be a valid excuse to lawmakers).
On a bigger-than-just-meta picture, it’s also important to keep in mind that should the concept of federation take off, Meta will not be the only commercial company pushing into federated applications, especially if lawmakers start pushing into that direction in the EU. In other words, defederating Meta would merely delay the inevitable, and it might be less of a waste of time to focus on how to ensure the protocol itself works against bad faith actors gaining too much power - which, might I add, can also exist on a smaller scale. If you only got 100 users, a 90 user instance controls 90% of the federated space, and can just as well exert pressure onto the protocol itself, we just trust instance owners to not do that right now, in particular the really big ones.
Again, note that I do not list benefits. Like I said, that’s the wrong direction to inquire in.
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Meta is one of the worst, if not the worst, bad actors on the internet. That would be like inviting serial killers into your home so you’ll know how to handle a loud neighbor next time they’re loud.
ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 10 months ago
He wants a user who literally just said “There is literally no benefit for us allowing Meta to integrate” to provide sources that list those benefits. That the guy just said do not exist.
You asked him the same, and three times he’s come back with a pile of words and no answer.
I’m 100% with you and @dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world : There is absolutely NO upside to letting Meta in the door.
I don’t want anything at all to do with Meta or their shitty mental soylent green, but I intend to block them for myself as a single user. I don’t want to tell anyone else what they need to do.
But anyone who is convinced that a company that thinks it’s cool to manipulate emotion and create depression in its users, whose users have taken their own lives because of the deliberately unmoderated but manipulated engagement-boosting emotive filth that Meta panders as a matter of course – and I’m totally not even addressing how far they have gone to help undermine democracies and democratic processes – then all I can say is that I don’t think they’ve lived long enough.
We are all literally sitting around here hypothesizing about what Meta will and will not do on the Fediverse because all of us, down to the last Lemizen, already knows that Meta fucking lies and we can’t believe a fucking word out of their mouths, so we have to guess.
And we’re doing that without even blinking: notice how NO ONE, absofuckinglutely NO ONE here, no matter how pro-Meta-federation they are, has suggested we ask Meta.
It’s because they already know. WE ALL ALREADY KNOW.
Goddamn, with this Meta shit I feel like I’m back in an abusive relationship where I have to stay three steps ahead of my partner just to be able to sleep at night, knowing there’s some fuckery going on because there always is, because that’s what they do, but having no idea what it is, and not even bothering with wasting words on the fool because all I’ll get back is shit, and then on top of everything if I ask I’ll have to act like there’s even the tiniest bit of truth to be found in those words.
And on and on it goes.
Lol, no.
Meta isn’t looking at what the Fediverse will be, and betting on margins; Meta is looking at what the Fediverse already IS and how it can be manipulated for fun and profit. It’s what they do.
And even the people here who don’t want to admit it in so many words already knows that’s what Meta does, in the same way that the cutest cats are happy to kill birds and enjoy every second of the slaughter without the least remorse. It’s not a moral question. They do it because they’re cats.
Meta is in the business of processing and redistributing brain product, using that processed brain product to get more brain product, and also getting more data on those brains so as to force more brain product from them as well as display targeted advertising at those brains every waking moment, because that’s Meta. That is what Meta does.
The morality of the shit Meta gets up to is only a question for people with morals, like those people and governments who have demanded that Meta answer for its actions and implement change, but morals are NOT what Meta does.
We all know this too: notice how NO ONE here is demanding that Meta do anything differently. They won’t. The thought itself is laughable. But see how quickly and completely we have internalized it, to the point that no one has yet suggested that META change in order to be allowed the federate, or noted all the references to false dichotomies that inhabit every discussion of the problem.
For myself, I’ll put threads.net and associated domains in the hosts file, find a way to personally block Meta content from anywhere else, even walk away if I have to, and be done with it. But anyone who thinks a wolf will suddenly behave differently in the 99th henhouse it sets eyes on hasn’t lived long enough. This is Meta, and this is what Meta does. Meta ALREADY has a plan for the Fediverse as it exists today, we don’t know what it is yet but it will be as morality-free as all the rest of their activities, and anyone who participates does so at their own risk.