• jtb@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    Suspending them before they have actually done anything wrong is a bit like a pre-crime.

    • Poob@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      You don’t let pedophiles babysit your kids, and you don’t let Facebook federate with your social network.

    • Skua@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not like “they” are some unknown quantity though, it’s the Facebook people. It’s not weird or unreasonable for people to not want the company that got fined literally a billion euros for data privacy violations just a couple of months ago to get involved in a thing they like

      • jtb@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not on Facebook but I know people who are, and they are just ordinary people who made a poor choice and didn’t read the terms and conditions. It’s all those people who you are excluding, not just Facebook employees.

        • Skua@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          All of those people are welcome to make accounts elsewhere on any Fediverse instance, though, just like they were before the launch of Threads. They’re not banned. They’re not being punished either. There’s just going to be less stuff on Threads.

        • mild_deviation@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s just a network effect. All we can do is help those people move to platforms that are better aligned with their users’ interests.

          • jtb@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Even Churches use Facebook. It’s not going to be easy.

    • artisanrox@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They already spread medical disinfo like wildfire, got someone who sold our state secrets to the highest bidder elected, and house sociopathic terrorists like libsoftiktok. That’s enough.

    • janWilejan@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      it’s more like suspending someone who has engaged in bad behaviour in the past and is likely/promising to do it again. if you own your own fediverse site, you decide what the rules are and how to enforce them.

      the difference between the fediverse and the corporate-controlled social media sites is that you can actually enforce your rules against larger companies on your own corner of the internet.

      • RemembertheApollo@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I know very little about the machinery that makes the fediverse work, so forgive me if this seems ignorant: What’s to prevent a malevolent entity from writing their own version of the fediverse that is compatible with the current version and uses the “EEE” philosophy to essentially take over, grow, and kill (or overwhelm) the ‘verse we all use now?