/kbin meta

4 readers

1 users here now

Magazine dedicated to discussions about the kbin itself. Provide feedback, ask questions, suggest improvements, and engage in conversations related to the platform organization, policies, features, and community dynamics. ---- * Roadmap 2023 * m/kbinDevlog * m/kbinDesign

founded 1 year ago

Is kbin.social anti-corporation? Should it be? (kbin.social)

submitted 1 year ago by shepherd@kbin.social to c/kbinMeta@kbin.social

78 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm seeing discussions on other instances about how a "federated" corporate instance should be handled, i.e. Meta, or really any major company.

What would kbin.social's stance be towards federating/defederating with a Meta instance?

Or what should that stance be?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Jo@readit.buzz 7 points 1 year ago

because people like being where people are

That's exactly the problem with mega-instances. From the link posted above:

As expected, no Google user bated an eye. In fact, none of them realised. At worst, some of their contacts became offline. That was all. But for the XMPP federation, it was like the majority of users suddenly disappeared. Even XMPP die hard fanatics, like your servitor, had to create Google accounts to keep contact with friends. Remember: for them, we were simply offline. It was our fault.