Defederate Meta

6 readers

1 users here now

This is a space on the Fediverse for organizing a widespread block of #Meta. Follow along on your favourite app from mastodon etc. Better yet, come and join in the conversation!

Please also see https://fedia.io/m/DefederateMeta/t/13712 for ideas on how to help out, and https://fedia.io/m/DefederateMeta/t/13685 for an explanation of why we want to #DefederateMeta

Rules

Rules:

We have zero tolerance for intolerance.

Absolutely no racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, xenophobia, or any other form of bigotry is permitted.

No spam, NSFW images, trolling, etc.

Keep it (mostly) on topic please. Fun is permitted :)

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

smallpatatas@fedia.io

Why /m/DefederateMeta ? (fedia.io)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by smallpatatas@fedia.io to c/DefederateMeta@fedia.io

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Meta's upcoming 'P92' app is reported to have ActivityPub compatibility (link)

Many users and admins are opposed to federating with Meta, due to concerns including, but not limited to:

user tracking, privacy violations, and data collection (link 1, 2, 3, 4)
embrace-extend-extinguish behaviour (link)
poor moderation
corporate influence over the ActivityPub protocol
centralization of the userbase around a single server
psychological manipulation (link) of users via algorithm
monopolistic behaviour (link)
intentionally allowing (and profiting from!) anti-Black racism (link 1, 2)
poor treatment of workers (link)
facilitation of genocide on Facebook (link)
failing to mitigate the distribution of CSAM on its platforms (link)
New, June 16th allowing scams to proliferate on their platforms despite user attempts to file reports (link)
New, June 16th rolling back COVID misinformation rules (link)
New, July 1st putting the onus on parents/guardians to protect kids from online predators (link)
a long history of breaching user trust (link)

In order to continue to build a new kind of social media, which prioritizes users over profits, and openness over walled gardens, we need to stand together in opposition to Meta's digital colonization effort.

What's making it difficult to form a consensus is that most admins haven't been communicating with users about what they plan to do (let alone asking the users what they want).

So, one very easy thing we can do is ask our admins if they're planning to block Meta, and if they aren't, ask them to reconsider.

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

[–] matthieu_xyz@piaille.fr 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

@smallpatatas
I don’t understand why you need to "convince" anyone. If you want to block Meta you can just block Meta or join an instance that blocks Meta, there is no need to collectively defederate.

If your instance’s admin has enabled SECURE_FETCH and you block Meta’s domain (even as a simple user) you are effectively isolated from meta, even boosting your posts can’t expose them to Meta (thanks to SECURE_FETCH).

This can be a personal decision it doesn’t have to be collective.

[–] smallpatatas@fedia.io 3 points 1 year ago

And I think it only works properly if it's collective. This isn't just about how we use functions of a protocol, it's about what kind of community we want to be.

[–] ErgoPraxis@fedia.io 2 points 1 year ago

It depends on if Meta is a cancer or a separate way of being.

If Meta is just a separate way of being, then no issues. Let them join and take part in a global community.
If Meta is a cancer, then their mere existence within the Fediverse will change it, adjust it, pull resources, push agendas.

... unfortunately, I think it might be the second one. Companies have one driving factor

profits. Any action (moral or unmoral) is at the disposal of a privately owned company ... or at least that's my theory. I could be wrong, or I could change my view in the future, but for now, this theory lines up with my observations.