this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2023
229 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37734 readers
385 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0xtero@kbin.social 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Meta should be considered "harmful to humankind" (the list of atrocities is long) and I personally really don't want anything to do with them.

It was only matter of time before one of the big players took interest. Too bad it had to be Meta, but I don't think the others would have been much better.

The protocol itself isn't secure, so if anyone is worried about data harvesting, better log off now and never return. Meta and anyone else can do that already (and is probably doing) without having to roll in with their own instances.

Federating with someone who might have 1.2 billion MAUs is kinda scary because most protocol implementations (like Mastodon) are huge mess of bloat and inefficiencies under the hood. Someone paying their hosting out of their own pocket or trusting on kindness of strangers should be wary of the amount of data that's going to hit them with federation.

It's probably silly to expect "unified blocklist". Some people are fixated with the idea of growth and equate mass popularity with success. Others would rather "wait and see". Let them. The fediverse used to be much more homogeneous place 3-4 years ago, but we're nearing 10M users. That's simply too many people and voices for there to be just one response.

Luckily there doesn't need to be. The protocol allows for creation of spaces that don't have to interact with Meta.

[–] VanillaGorilla@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago

The protocol itself isn't secure, so if anyone is worried about data harvesting, better log off now and never return

I'm more concerned about tracking tbh. But it's good to know they're planning to get a piece of the cake. I'm ready to block them.

[–] Mothra@mander.xyz 8 points 1 year ago

I agree with your sentiment but I'm a fediverse noob, I'm confused: if a large company such as Meta bloats the spaces they federate with, wouldn't that immediately get them blocked by people who cover their own hosting costs? (In which case I guess my instance probably would block them?) Or does it mean they will damage everything so fast only spaces with enough funding will be able to remain afloat, forcing us all to rebuild communities elsewhere?

[–] KarsicKarl@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Each instance admin decides which servers to block for themselves. If you visit the info pages of some systems they will list blocked systems, and there are a lot of them.

There are some very unsavoury communities out there. Blocking usually revolves around how effective moderation is.

As an example you can see a list of servers blocked by mastodonapp.uk on the About page.

https://mastodonapp.uk/about

[–] KarsicKarl@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Oliphant maintains a minimum block list that most systems take as a starter list.