/kbin meta

5 readers

6 users here now

Magazine dedicated to discussions about the kbin itself. Provide feedback, ask questions, suggest improvements, and engage in conversations related to the platform organization, policies, features, and community dynamics. ---- * Roadmap 2023 * m/kbinDevlog * m/kbinDesign

founded 1 year ago

110

Could we get official word on what Kbin's stance is towards federating with Meta? (kbin.social)

submitted 1 year ago by Roundcat@kbin.social to c/kbinMeta@kbin.social

207 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I would like to know if I can feel safe here, or if I should pack it up and start looking elsewhere sooner rather than later.

If the kbin staff have already made there intentions clear, please let me know.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] asjmcguire@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

None of that addresses the objection that has been raised though.

If instances want to defederate from meta that is perfectly fine, the Fediverse is supposed to be about choice.
Instances should not however be able to dictate what OTHER people on other instances are able to do.

By doing so - that part of the fediverse is behaving in exactly the same way that they fear that meta will behave eventually.

[–] duringoverflow@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't get it. Nobody dictated anyone. People want absolutely none relation with meta and they want to be on a different network than meta. By federating with instances that federate with meta, everyone ends up in the same federated network while some pretend that they don't see each other. Meta is not here for the same values they are. Meta is not here for the values of the fediverse. Ostracizing meta is the only healthy solution if we agree that they have ulterior motives.

By doing so - that part of the fediverse is behaving in exactly the same way that they fear that meta will behave eventually.

by not doing so, is like accepting meta as friend while at the same time you're waiting for the moment they'll stab you. Fediverse and activity pub have absolutely nothing to gain by allowing this.

@asjmcguire

[–] asjmcguire@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Right.... so - the long and short of it is -

A company (any company) decides to integrate with ActivityPub, and the entire fediverse has a toys out of the pram moment every time that happens, gradually closing off into smaller and smaller federated circles, that stop federating with the rest of the fediverse.

A reminder, Tumblr are supposed to be adding ActivityPub.
Wordpress has.
Discourse I believe now has.

So who exactly is it that gets to decide which companies are and are not allowed to be part of the Fediverse?

It's all very very much like a dictatorship, whether you want to accept it or not - that's exactly how it is being operated.

[–] be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Absolute strawman from the very first paragraph. Some people might complain about any company, but this uproar is specifically about facebook. Let's not pretend they are just any other company. They are among a short list of companies who have demonstrated just how awful a big tech company can be if allowd.

They have at no time in their history demonstrated any capability to be anything other than an example of all the worst things that Stallman or any of the OG greybeards would ever have warned us about. They are corporate greed exemplified, nearly to the point of parody.

[–] duringoverflow@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

@asjmcguire

I struggle to continue conversations when the argument is "if you're doing X to Y you are also Y". No, if you want to ostracise the biggest greediest corporation that we all know are here for different reasons than the reasons that the fediverse was created, no, you're not a dictator. You are just trying to protect your own values.

Same as when you don't allow hate speech, you're not a fascist who oPposEs tO fReE SpEeCh

Using words with very clear, historically set meaning, to describe the exact opposite thing is a very weird path to take.

[–] be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So who exactly is it that gets to decide which companies are and are not allowed to be part of the Fediverse?

It's all very very much like a dictatorship, whether you want to accept it or not - that's exactly how it is being operated.

Sorry I missed this in my prior reply and can no longer edit it.

It's not a dictatorship beyond any one instance, which is the entire point. You don't like that some large percentage of instances have said "no thank you" to Meta? Then you move to an instance that is happy to be embraced by them.

[–] asjmcguire@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

For christ sake I don't understand why people aren't getting it. YES it is a dictatorship because it is not about any one instance - if it was just instances saying "I don't want to federate with Meta" and that was it - I wouldn't have a problem, that is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. But that's not what this is - this is instances saying "I don't want to talk to Meta, and if you want to continue talking to me, then YOU are not allowed to talk to Meta either" - explain to me HOW that is not being a dictatorship?