I’m changing my stance on the whole Meta/project92 thing after reading this article. I think the entire* fediverse should block project92 by default. Later, some instances can re-evaluate whether to maintain those blocks, once we have a better idea of what the benefits and consequences of federating will be:
Of course, it’s possible to work with companies you don’t trust. Still, a strategy of trusting the company you don’t trust until you actually catch them trying to screw you over is … risky. There’s a lot to be said for the approach scicomm.xyz describes as “prudently defensive” in Meta on the Fediverse: to block or not to block?: “block proactively and, if none of the anticipated problems materialise within time, consider removing the block.” Georg of lediver.se frames it similarly:
We will do the watch-and-see strategy on our instance in regards to #meta: block them, watch them, and if they behave (hahahahaha) we will see if we unblock them or not. No promise though
Previously, I’d thought “some block, some federate” would be the best approach, as described in this post by @atomicpoet:
My stance towards Meta is that the Fediverse needs two types of servers:
Lobby servers that explicitly federate with Meta for the purposes of moving people from Meta to the rest of the Fediverse
Exit servers that explicitly defederate with Meta for the purposes of keeping portions of the Fediverse out of reach from Meta
Both approaches not only can co-exist with each other, they might just be complementary.
People who use Meta need a way to migrate towards a space that is friendly, easy-to-use, and allows them to port their social graph.
But People also need a space that’s free from Meta, and allows them to exist beyond the eye of Zuckerberg.
Guess what? People who use Meta now might want to be invisible to Meta later. And people who dislike Meta might need a bridge to contact friends and family through some mechanism that still allows them to communicate beyond Meta’s control.
And thankfully, the Fediverse allows for this.
For anyone “willing to give Meta a chance”, ask yourself:
Q: Why is Meta doing this?
A: To make money.
Q: How is Meta going to make money out of this?
A: By having as many users on their instance as they can, so they can sell their data and advertise to them (that is Meta’s modus operandi, after all).
This is already antithetical to the entire fediverse concept, where you want users to be as spread out over instances as possible.
Having most of the users on one instance means the “community cost” of defederating from that instance is enormous to the point of being inadvisable for an instance admin. This brings us to a scenario where the ‘federation’ is essentially useless, as everyone is producing/consuming content on the one instance.
Therefore, the idea of a commercial entity using the fediverse, by itself, mutilates what the fediverse is all about.
deleted by creator
Holy strawman, Batman!
I’m not even going to address the rest of your comment if the thing you start with is claiming that I don’t want developers to get money for their work.
fucking bizarre that you think that a corporation is the same thing as a small collective of software developers or an indie studio
like I can’t even wrap my head around how you could think this way
deleted by creator