this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2023
664 points (100.0% liked)

Chat

7483 readers
34 users here now

Relaxed section for discussion and debate that doesn't fit anywhere else. Whether it's advice, how your week is going, a link that's at the back of your mind, or something like that, it can likely go here.


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
 

although this is unlikely to substantially and directly impact us and is a more immediate concern for Mastodon and similar fediverse software, we've signed the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact as a matter of principle. that pact pledges the following:

i am an instance admin/mod on the fediverse. by signing this pact, i hereby agree to block any instances owned by meta should they pop up on the fediverse. project92 is a real and serious threat to the health and longevity of fedi and must be fought back against at every possible opportunity

the maintainer of the site is currently a little busy and seems to manually add signatures so we may not appear on there for several days but here's a quick receipt that we did indeed sign it.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Satiric_Weasel@beehaw.org 74 points 1 year ago

I guess I'm the odd one out when I say I fully support this decision. I do not trust Meta, I Do not trust their intentions, and they have given me no reason to trust them.

Thanks Beehaw.

[–] OneRedFox@beehaw.org 58 points 1 year ago

Good call from the instance admins. Meta's been a known actor for over 10 years at this point, which is more than enough time to observe their behavior (including up to a few weeks ago when they got fined for violating the GDPR). They're not going to be participating in good faith and we don't need to give them a chance to shit up the Fediverse.

Meta is not a brand new, fresh-faced corporation that maybe needs a chance to prove it's good intentions in the fediverse. It is an established entity that has a history of killing competition and often being on the wrong side of social issues. It should be rejected from federation outright because of its track record, if nothing else.

[–] dcormier@beehaw.org 34 points 1 year ago (12 children)

I’m disappointed.

“The fediverse is open and interoperable!”

“No, not them.”

[–] Lionir@beehaw.org 113 points 1 year ago (21 children)

Well, we've defederated with other people in the past (and will continue to do so in the future most likely). Federated systems are not an all or nothing situation. IMO that's the biggest draw and improvement over a distributed system for social media.

load more comments (21 replies)
[–] bear_delune@beehaw.org 46 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Don’t pretend like Meta is going to be open and interoperable.

You can’t look at their history and think letting the fox sleep in the hen house is a good idea. The house is for hens.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ikantolol@kbin.social 34 points 1 year ago

there are instances in the past where big players acquire the small ones and while at first they seem to be cooperative, it ultimately destroys the small players, one such case is XMPP the open chat protocols long before we have Matrix, killed by Google

https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish

I guess this is a cautionary action, better to grow slower rather than be killed by Meta.

[–] retronautickz@beehaw.org 21 points 1 year ago

Do you really think Meta wants to be "one of us", that they plan to be on equal ground as the rest of the already existing instances managed by individuals and not by corporations? Are you that naive?

[–] Ertebolle@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago (11 children)

The thing is that this isn't really a marriage of equals; if Meta joins the Fediverse then Meta will swallow the Fediverse, simply by dint of having several orders of magnitude more users.

It would be akin to India applying to become the 51st US state; if we let them in, they'd end up controlling 80% of the House and the Electoral College and the US wouldn't really be the US anymore.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] fiah@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

it's the paradox of tolerance. We (fediverse) cannot be tolerant of the intolerant (meta in this case), lest we be destroyed by them. And do not for one second ascribe any benevolent properties to meta, they are evil through and through and have been pretty much since inception. Tolerating their presence would be akin to tolerating nazis, the second that happens I'm fucking out of here

[–] mifuyne@beehaw.org 11 points 1 year ago

This talk of tolerance reminds me of something I read[^1]: Tolerance is a peace treaty, not a moral obligation. With this line of thought, the intolerance of intolerance stops being a paradox and makes a whole heck of a lot of sense. Intolerance broke that peace treaty before it even entered into it, IMO.

[^1]: It may have been this opinion piece: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] BioDriver@beehaw.org 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is fantastic news and applaud this decision. I used to work in digital marketing and having seen how Facebook, (and Twitter, Google, etc.) makes their sausage and how they operate, I advise everyone get off Meta/FB, or really any centralized social media platform for that matter.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] caffinz@lemmy.ml 27 points 1 year ago

Only good can come from shutting out corporate interests. Good on you ❤️

[–] Deebster@beehaw.org 27 points 1 year ago

Good. To quote WarGames:

The only winning move is not to play

Meta is at best looking to profit from the Fediverse, and more likely looking to extinguish it. I think blocking them at the borders is the only solution.

[–] wildeaboutoskar@beehaw.org 26 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the transparency. I personally think this is the right move. Meta shouldn't be trusted, based on their previous performance. If they do something to change that then we'll see, but I'm not expecting them to change their stripes.

Been catching up on all the NDA drama on Mastodon, it's really caused a rift between some users and instance admins. Felt a bit like an 'aww it's all grown up' moment to see Mastodon having a scandal.

[–] inmatarian@beehaw.org 26 points 1 year ago

Good choice, who wants to deal with a hundred thousand instagram users sitting in between every fediverse user.

[–] LollerCorleone@kbin.social 26 points 1 year ago

As a user of the fediverse, I appreciate you for doing this.

[–] azureeight@beehaw.org 25 points 1 year ago

I appreciate the work you all do. Im a heavier lurker than particpater and i see little fingers of you all taking care of beehaw for us all the time and it makes me smile 😁 good work everyone!

[–] Mars7x@beehaw.org 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I 100% agree with this decision. At first I wanted to give Meta a chance, just to get a big player in the Fediverse, but after reading this article it totally changed my views.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PelicanPersuader@beehaw.org 20 points 1 year ago

Good move. Fuck Zuck.

[–] nlm@beehaw.org 19 points 1 year ago

You guys rock!

[–] xptiger@beehaw.org 19 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I hereby agree to block any instances owned by meta should they pop up on the fediverse.

I suggest to rephrase with this better: "I hereby agree to block any instances owned by, governed by, supported by mostly, funded by only or affiliated with Meta, its subsidiaries, major involving partners and influenced involving affiliates should they pop up on the Fediverse."

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: I do not provide my suggestion "as a legal advice" but as a thought to share that may be considered or configured by legal experts. I will not be held liable for any error that any revision upon or any derivative from my suggestion may cause.

[–] retronautickz@beehaw.org 11 points 1 year ago

This pact isn't legally binding, but more of a moral "I stand against Meta" thing

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] nromdotcom@beehaw.org 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dee_Imaginarium@beehaw.org 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Nice, I got the vibes you'd do that without having to announce it but I'm glad to hear the commitment. Makes it easier to feel better about building connections here knowing they won't be thrown apart when Meta comes to town.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TendieMaster69@midwest.social 17 points 1 year ago

Corporations will attempt to infiltrate anything they see as a threat to their profit margins. Long live the Fediverse. 😀

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 17 points 1 year ago

As an instance admin: signed.

[–] retronautickz@beehaw.org 16 points 1 year ago

Good. There's no place for corporations on the fediverse. Specially not for a corporation like Meta that has shown time after time how dangerous they are.

[–] Griff@beehaw.org 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I love this instance. Thank you so much guys, all this Meta stuff has been a bee in my bonnet. Forgive the pun.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HealGirl@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

Fuck meta and fuck Facebook. No one wants this place to become like that dogshit site. Fully support defederating from any meta owned instances

[–] HeapOfDogs@beehaw.org 14 points 1 year ago

Love everything about this

[–] SiioSytry@beehaw.org 13 points 1 year ago

thank you for doing this

[–] BobQuasit@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago

You can't become a billionaire without being incredibly evil. They are literally working to kill off all life on the planet.

As for giving them the benefit of the doubt? Seriously? Anyone who suggests that has got to be getting a nice paycheck from the plutocrats.

[–] Domiku@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago

Thanks! I totally support this move

load more comments
view more: next ›