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.

  • Lionir [he/him]@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    107
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • bananahammock@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree, but why defederate before knowing any details? What is the harm in hearing them out

      • alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.orgOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        157
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • Lionir [he/him]@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        43
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Melpomene@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Given the number of competitors they’ve killed or absorbed, you’re not far off. Heck, they even stomped Google.

      • fiah@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

        • Nepenthe@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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. Theirs is always going to be a numbers game.

          This includes any new users too, and it’s something that can be mitigated more than stopped. I don’t see it as really a question that we stand to wither in the shadow of a recognizable name.

          Any niceties will be presumed by me to be a fakeout, and I’m personally pissed off that what was supposed to be a way to worm out from under the corporations semi-permanently stands to be drowned out immediately by corporations.

      • AnonymousLlama@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

      • magnetosphere@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

        • debounced@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          And just so happens to be the same pesky thing people refuse to read, color me surprised. 🙄

      • mobyduck648@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        The same harm the inhabitants of the henhouse would come to if they decided to hear the fox out.