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.
Woh! making money! oh my god, that’s treacherous. Software developers are not allowed to make money they are slaves to us software users. To think that software developers have the audacity to make money on their platform! Modern day treason.
bit ironic no? blocking an instance in order to promote people spreading out, when in reality you’re decreasing the number of instances?
Again, i’ve yet to see an actual negative to meta bringing 1-2 billion users over to the fediverse, people’s points so far have been “but meta”. This is a good thing, why? Imagine being able to communicate with people on meta, without needing to use meta’s spyware apps. You yourself claim meta sells data, so is it not a good thing to not be locked into their platform? By supporting activitypub, you can communicate with meta users from a privacy preserving instance of your choice.
Second, the whole “fediverse concept” is to have no censorship over the instances someone is allowed to use, the whole point is to give the user the choice to use any instance they wish. If they’re ok with using a “data collecting” instance, sure go for it, they should be able to make that decision, not the instance owner whose censoring their opinion by blocking meta.
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
what disadvantages are there to meta coming over to the fediverse?
i’ve seen the following points being brought up:
i mean thats just conspiracy, but small instances blocking them will have no impact on stopping them, they’ll come either way
…? posts are public, they don’t need to come to the fediverse to see them, it’ll improve privacy if anything due to not needing to install meta’s apps to communicate with them.