105
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by cacheson@kbin.social to c/fediverse@kbin.social

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:

  1. Lobby servers that explicitly federate with Meta for the purposes of moving people from Meta to the rest of the Fediverse

  2. 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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] supernovae@readit.buzz 0 points 1 year ago

Y'all seriously don't think any of this through do you?

Right now, if they jump ship - they lose their network.

In the future, if they jump ship - they can do so and still maintain their network.

My enthusiasm for the fediverse is there because i see this as opportunity to shine.

Y'all see it as opportunity to run and lock your doors.

You're like the Trump of the fediverse. "Build a wall"

I say fuck that.

[-] AnonTwo@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

They wouldn't even try to interact with fediverse, if they couldn't make hooks to keep people from jumping ship. They're not stupid, and they know nobody in their network would jump ship just because they chose not to federate.

You argue that people who argue against you are "trump of the fediverse"? You sound like you're the kind of person who would give Trump a chance. What's the worst he could do?

Turns out he practically redefined what a President could do. And none of it good.

this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2023
105 points (100.0% liked)

Fediverse

62 readers
3 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the federated social networking ecosystem, which includes decentralized and open-source social media platforms. Whether you are a user, developer, or simply interested in the concept of decentralized social media, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as the benefits and challenges of decentralized social media, new and existing federated platforms, and more. From the latest developments and trends to ethical considerations and the future of federated social media, this category covers a wide range of topics related to the Fediverse.

founded 2 years ago