this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2023
815 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37603 readers
558 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
[–] ericflo@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 year ago (35 children)

Am I living in a different planet from the rest of the commenters here? We have much more to gain from this than they do.

[–] cyd@vlemmy.net 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

To me, the argument for accepting Meta into the Fediverse goes beyond gain and loss. If you run an Internet service, you have a moral obligation to make a good faith attempt to interoperate with anyone using the protocol as intended.

By a similar token, if you run a mail server, you should accept SMTP connections as far as possible. Yes, you can ban spam, but you should not ban connections from Gmail even if Gmail is a privacy-destroying bad idea. By all means, allow individual users to set up their own block lists, but this should not be done at the server level.

[–] Shhalahr@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

To me, the argument for accepting Meta into the Fediverse goes beyond gain and loss. If you run an Internet service, you have a moral obligation to make a good faith attempt to interoperate with anyone using the protocol as intended.

But that's the thing: We don't trust that Meta will be using the protocol "as intended".

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (29 replies)