Pawb.Social Feedback

@brodokk I'm not part of your subcommunity, so feel free to discount my thoughts. Tldr maybe a ToS canary?

I don't think I or many reasonable people would think less of you for not signing the pact.

I think the major thing to be upset over their (secretive) plans is the alleged meeting with large servers with an NDA. Whatever that leads to, it can be seen to be ignoring the voices of their users over the admins' personal goals. Mastodon and the Fediverse were built with the knowledge that large servers would indeed get enshittified, so this isn't a complete surprise. Blocking potentially untrusted servers on sight or before they become a major problem would make it more difficult for users who want to migrate to escape.

I don't know what resources Facebook is willing to throw into it, or how tempted an overworked money-losing admin would be to the right poison in their ear and a huge wad of cash.

I think maybe one minimum low effort stand against them could be a legal 'canary' in a server's Terms of Service, stating affirmatively that they have not had any secret meetings with Facebook, and are not under any NDAs. Then if a well meaning admin wants to risk it, they can still have their secret meeting, but then take out the canary clause in their ToS.

I don't know, just something off the top of my head. Signing something might make users more confident in you, but in the end, they're already trusting you to do the right thing regardless.

I've signed it myself, but I'm a server impacting only myself, it costs me nothing to bind myself to something I would've likely done anyway.