You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
32 points
*

I guess I don’t understand why we would be lenient with a corporation that has actively destroyed the modern internet for profits, blatantly violates user privacy, etc etc.

The topic of defederation seems to really make people want to break out their soap boxes to talk about open access and free love, despite you know… the real world being real, and corpos willing to shit on your good thing for a few bucks.

permalink
report
reply
12 points

Remember, Facebook literally facilitated ethnic cleansing as a result of their techbro “move fast and break things” philosophy and their disinterest in paying for content mods with knowledge of local languages.

Meta doesn’t give a fuck about anyone here or anything we’ve built. Mark Zuckerberg wants power and money and to push his weird bloodless McDonalds-ized vision of what the Internet should be on every single person on this planet.

Fuck that, and fuck any sort of cooperation with it.

I made the decision to leave shitty corporate platforms for a reason. The people I’d like to follow or interact with who still only use such platforms can come to their decision in their own time.

I am not interested in selling out my values, nor am I interested in enduring a tsunami of bottom-of-the-barrel interaction with average Meta users, in the name of interoperability. Meta made the choice to be a shitty entity with shitty values that builds shitty things. I don’t feel like being covered in shit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Allowing an org to federate is not being lenient, it is how federation works. Defederating should be done to protect the federation from a node causing harm to the federation–not preemptively in my opinion.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

So let a known criminal into your home, until they commit a crime? Wouldn’t not letting the known criminal into your home be the safer, more protective route?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I think a house isn’t the best comparison here, as a house isn’t a public space, whereas the Fediverse is. A better comparison might be a town square or a park. Anyone is welcome to be there, but if they do something bad, or it becomes obvious that they are going to do something bad, then they can be removed from that space. Otherwise they should be allowed to exist in that space.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Facebook will cause harm by its very presence.

In any event, people with your opinion may end up in one fediverse “neighborhood,” and people with my opinion will end up in another.

I’m fine with that, as the “neighborhood” I end up in will have a lot less inane garbage everywhere.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I question if cutting them off would actually hurt them that much. Like, it would hurt, but not in a project-ending way. It’s far better IMO to use the prospect as encouragement for them to not be openly disruptive in the future.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Hurting Meta shouldn’t be the goal. Not providing direct access for Meta tentacles to the userbase should be.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Hmm. Are you worried more about our data being used, or us being lured into a proprietary service?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The only thing it could hurt is us, if everyone defederates people on threads won’t even have a chance to be exposed to other parts of the fediverse, making it even easier for Meta to execute EEE

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Exclusion breeds interest. Nobody cares about going to Mcdonald’s but there’s years long waiting lists for multi Michelin star restaurants.

permalink
report
parent
reply

sdfpubnix

!sdfpubnix@lemmy.sdf.org

Create post

Fans of SDF

Community stats

  • 190

    Monthly active users

  • 171

    Posts

  • 1.5K

    Comments

Community moderators