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.
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.
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.
I’m disappointed.
“The fediverse is open and interoperable!”
“No, not them.”
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.
I agree, but why defederate before knowing any details? What is the harm in hearing them out
it’s literally Facebook. i think we’ve heard and seen more than enough to from Mark Zuckerberg and the platform which actively continues to be one of the worst vectors of online harm, misinformation, and advocacy for social and political violence (among many, many other ills). particularly with respect to our instance: their project can get fucked as far as i’m concerned.
Yea, i’m not sure how much benefit of doubt we should be handing Mark Zuck of all people. There’s few people in the world who make their intentions more clear than him. Not that i’m trying to paint him as evil, i’m not and i don’t think he is, but i also see no reason to expect self-run instances to offer an olive branch to him.
We should be vary paranoid about Embrace Extend Extinguish in these communities.
Anyone here into cross stitching? I’d like to send the Zuck a cross stitch that just says, “Get Fucked”
ahhh, now i think it’d be a funny collaborative idea to send him a fediverse communal “Fuck Off!” blanket
I think this is the digital version.
I’d also add that they have, in the past, conducted unethical experiments on their users to attempt to manipulate said users’ emotional state. I’m just a cross poster here, but I respect the stance.
The details are under NDA and Facebook has a really bad history of having a terrible moderation culture. I don’t see any reason based on their past history to believe that they will change.
It feels kinda like giving a gun to a serial killer and just waiting it out. It’s an exaggerated analogy but I think it illustrates the point well.
Given the number of competitors they’ve killed or absorbed, you’re not far off. Heck, they even stomped Google.
before knowing any details?
before? facebook is almost 20 years old, they’ve had plenty of time to show us who they are and they have. If you have any doubt about their moral fiber then I suggest you pull your head out of your ass and enter the fucking 2020s
If there’s no issues then we can refederate at any later time.
What is the harm in waiting?
Can’t find the source, but I did see a rumor they’ll be turning on federation a few months after the official release so as to not spring all of this place on a bunch of old people. So if they do that, they’ll already have their own ecosystem/culture in place. I’m also a bit worried the extended introduction is going to lull people.
I think regardless, it always needs to be at the forefront of user’s minds that they’re not averse to playing it slow. Likely, they’ll be on their best behavior starting out, especially since having a working platform at all means making as many friends in the fediverse as they can. They’re not gonna come in swinging their junk around like spez.
Acting the gracious benefactor will not stop them from leaving this place a haunted backwater once they gather enough standing to start gradually poaching users via shiny toys and high engagement.
This includes any new users. Most noobs are probably going to the big name or staying away entirely because they associate the fediverse with Zuckerberg. We stand a real chance of withering because no non-corporate instance can compete with the kind of time and money they have.
As a corporation, their aim is always going to be numbers. They know they can’t physically buy the entire fediverse out, so their only recourse is to make any competition playing keep away irrelevant. Any niceties will be presumed by me to be a fakeout.
I think if this were a new player in the market, say for example a new social media platform that was going to venture into the fediverse, most people here would give them the benefit of the doubt.
However this is meta, they shouldn’t take get the benefit of the doubt with how they’ve been operating over the last decade. There’s no good faith that they’ll be good participants
history
And just so happens to be the same pesky thing people refuse to read, color me surprised. 🙄
Corporations are motivated by profit. One of the ways Meta profits is by using your personal information for targeted advertising. For them, “community building” is a means, not an end. What else could you possibly need to know?
If a known con artist asks you to listen to their pitch, are you going to “hear them out”, or slam the door in their face?
The same harm the inhabitants of the henhouse would come to if they decided to hear the fox out.
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.
🚫🦊
🌍🔥🦊 is encouraged though, especially if you like ad blockers.
I’ll rephrase: 🚫🦊➡️🐓🏠
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.
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?
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.
While I appreciate the analogy, the electoral college is a seriously broken system which hasn’t protected proportional representation in a long, long time.
Oh certainly; my point was simply that in a system where population = influence, letting in a new group with several times as many people as all of your existing groups put together means that that new group effectively takes over.
The electoral college was never intended to protect proportional representation. The whole idea of equal representation in the Senate was to avoid high population states running roughshod over the smaller ones. This obviously dilutes the influence of higher population states and amplifies the smaller ones at the electoral college.
The system is not broken though. It does exactly what it was originally intended to do 240 years ago. You just don’t agree with it’s intention and results
The electoral college was never intended to protect proportional representation.
Article 1 of the constitution very clearly lays out how electors are supposed to be chosen based on the census. To say that the house is not supposed to represent proportional representation while the senate represents non-proportional representation as a counterbalance is ignoring the long history of debate and the many laws passed to attempt to bring representation in the house in proportion with the population.
The system is broken. We do not know the ‘original intent’ and anyone trying to argue for constitutional originalism is either completely ignorant of how literally everything changes with time or trying to enforce their conservative ideals through a guise of legitimacy.
But this isn’t really the right place to have this discussion (we’re on a thread about defederating from meta) so I’m gonna withdraw now and not reply to any more responses about this.
Each state gets a number of electors equal to its congressional representation (senators plus representatives). If the number of representatives weren’t capped it would go a long way towards making the Electoral College more representative of the population.
Yeah the size is what I think is most worrying. I’ve only just got here so I’m pretty keen on the content (which seems to be the regular content that was here before + a fusion of stuff from Reddit)
I’m really not keen on having an influx of low quality Facebook posts here.
I’m not the one to be on my high horse, thinking that these platforms or Reddit are beacons of enlightenment, but the comments here are light-years above what I see on Facebook, so I want none of that.
75% of the posts I see on kbin are the worst low quality meme bullshit, significantly dumber and worse than the horrible stuff on Facebook.
You’re worried that, what? Itll get in the way of the trash everywhere already?
You need to curate your feed. That’s not what I’m seeing.
It’s basically what happened after the revolutionary war, and reparations were even paid: to slave owners.
Well yeah, and the 3/5 clause was essentially a compromise whereby the disproportionately populous areas agreed to accept partial credit for the share of their population that was enslaved.
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
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.
It may have been this opinion piece: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376 ↩︎
It’s ok to not tolerate algorithms that promote intolerance for clicks and advertising.
I agree this seems kneejerk. If Meta refuses to abide by the standards of interoperability and openness then lock them out, but by doing so ahead of time the fediverse is committing the crime it’s pre-punishing Meta for.
As much as I don’t think the pact will do much, it’s their right to defederate whichever instances they want. The protocol is still “open and interoperable” and this does not change that - in fact, this move is only possible because of that openness.
Your argument only sounds kinda sane when applied to Meta, but the same could be said about instances made by bad actors (spammers, for example). Please do further research before commenting on this.
What? Are you arguing tolerance of intolerance?
I’m arguing the protocol was designed this way for a reason. Each instance is meant to be able to implement their own policies and defederate who they want, exactly what Beehaw is doing here. The idea that this is against the spirit of the protocol is entirely inaccurate. Hope that clears it up.
Regardless of how untrustworthy Meta as a company is, it also tends to hold the kinds of “mainstream” social media platforms that I have actively been avoiding for many reasons, including their communities. Beehaw has already defederated from other instances for having open sign-up and a disproportionately large number of users on them who needed moderation actions taken, and I can see a Meta-run instance posing the same kinds of problems.
Plus, like others said, it’s not impossible to federate later if it ends up being an overreaction. It’s just that Meta and its userbase already exist, so it’s possible to make pre-emptive judgement with that knowledge and correct the judgement later, potentially avoiding a flood of unwanted content.
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!
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.
Good choice, who wants to deal with a hundred thousand instagram users sitting in between every fediverse user.
As a user of the fediverse, I appreciate you for doing this.
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.
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.
Well hell man, give us the details.
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.
I just finished reading it. I must admit that I wasn’t blown away at the start. But the last few paragraphs, especially about the “Embrace, Extend, Exterminate” strategy really convinced me.
I did not remember that Google chat was once a XMPP client and that they pulled the plug on this.
Anyway, I’m totally convinced that the fediverse is most probably better off without Meta. Although, I’m not sure how the fediverse admin can really block them. At some point, some people will want to see meta’s stuff.
It almost feel like we need a legal organization around the fediverse. Just some unorganized random people won’t save whatever we have here. If we still want this to be as free as possible, there will be a time where a giant company will fuck thing up and we may forget why we didn’t want them here in the first place.
Only good can come from shutting out corporate interests. Good on you ❤️
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.
This pact isn’t legally binding, but more of a moral “I stand against Meta” thing
I really don’t think this pact has any legal value to begin with.
Look at you, coming in with your legalese.
Godsspeed.
Y’all’re great!
Y’all’d’ve done it, too!
Good move. Fuck Zuck.
