VLemmy Chat

Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?

Zuck: People just submitted it.

Zuck: I don't know why.

Zuck: They "trust me"

Zuck: Dumb f--ks.

Source

Really liked the final comment.

I do still hold the view blocking them isn't the right answer, maybe its needless optimism, I understand the idea of meta developing it's own fork, but if you can already have this many people agreeing to blovk them I feel a condition could already be negotiated (like instances will inly federate if the code is open source) instead of blocking outright. I feel this is the nuclear option and there are still unexplored solutions.

Problem for me is that, I don't like an image of the fediverse where we just block any big service that comes our way, we all stand more to gain if we manage to get federating right, even if it requires putting up conditions for that federation to be done.

Also I don't think mastodon or the fediverse at large would not survive one of those services suddenly defederating (or violating the hypothetical condition, thus for ing everyone to block them), this is probably where my hopeless optimism comes into play, but the community already built here is pretty tech savvy and we are already at numbers capable of self sustaining, I feel the community would not die out if we loose access to whatever one of those big services was offering.

Still this federation shouldn't affect lemmy that much since it's geared towards mastodon like microblogging services right now, so I will stand by whatever this community decides.

And defederating would prevent that because...?

I think facebook is more secure than a random lemmy instance.

Yes - besides making collection of public data easier, it breaks down the walls of DM’s allowing meta and non-meta users to DM each other without friction, meaning most non-meta users won’t even notice that they’re starting to send their private data to meta. Additionally, that lack of friction allows them to collect data on who you follow from their server and who on their server follows you, including the content of those public exchanges along with the private info they have on the users on their side, which they can then pull in with your public data to make a great profile on you they will be happy to sell to the highest bidder even if the buyer is, purely hypothetically, a white supremacist cult hell bent on your death.

Not taking a stand is an appeal to default, and because of the weight effect Meta will have thanks to money and resources, this will directly translate to letting Meta harm others.

Not to sound elitist but one of the main reasons I want nothing to do with it is the almost guaranteed influx of normies and casuals. Additionally, Meta does not want to see the fediverse or any other social network grow, they want everyone to use their network and pay them.

They will have the money to run more bigger faster severs. The risk is the majority start to use those severs as home, then communities end up there, then Facebook end up controlling the communities.

Same, if needed, I want to be the one doing the blocking. It's not like I'm averae to the idea of blocking, but I like being the one shaping what I can see and what I won't

The thing is a database can be used from different applications, so it can have a normal lemmy/mastodon instance working on it and other applications that only read and analyze data.

If meta is putting it's dirty hands on this it's to male profit and violate our privacy. If we federate with it it will have access to our data as well to analyze. I dont want that.

Came to add exactly this! I looked at a table of instances and only considered ones that had few blocks when I was signing up. I'm not sure if I should be so quick to turn around on that principle unless there's a concrete reason too.

same, but i have to add

I’d change my position if and when Meta makes any proprietary changes to the protocol or seemingly intentional “misimplementations” of it that impact interoperability.

This implies that the problem will come after they try to change anything. However, there are many things they can do without changing the protocol.

1. With their growth in population they can create centralized communities that others will follow or try to participate in. This ecosystem, once acquired, can be ransomed for favors. What happens when Facebook implies, not through an announcement but through precedent, that anyone who doesn't defederate Burggit will lose access to certain communities that are now big enough to be "core" communities?
2. Other stuff I can't be bothered to type but can be summed up as "through sheer size and force, their power will grow until their reach is so deep entrenched into our lair, that our walls will turn to acid and our halls the beast's stomach."

that having been said, i couldn't give two shits about meta so i don't think we should be preemptively trying to defederate without even thinking about it thoroughly. I'm personally, similarly to you, here cuz I don't want defederations to happen. Hopefully we stay free. :)