this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2023
19 points (100.0% liked)

Fediverse

757 readers
2 users here now

A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.

Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".

Getting started on Fediverse;

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
deadsuperhero@lemmy.ml
wakest@lemmy.ml
19
Should the Fediverse welcome its new surveillance-capitalism overlords? Opinions differ! (infosec.exchange)
submitted 1 year ago by thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchange to c/fediverse@lemmy.ml
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Should the Fediverse welcome its new surveillance-capitalism overlords? Opinions differ!

https://privacy.thenexus.today/should-the-fediverse-welcome-surveillance-capitalism/

Contents:

- Two views of the fediverse
- The case for "Trust but verify"
- Wait a second. Why should anybody trust Facebook, Instagram, or Meta?
- Why the Anti-Meta FediPact is good strategy
- We're here, we're queer, fuck Facebook
- A few words about digital colonialism
- Now's a good time for instance admins to discuss with their communities
- In chaos there is opportunity!

@fediverse@lemmy.ml @fediverse@kbin.social #fediverse #Meta #FediPact

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sibrosan@mastodon.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@thenexusofprivacy @Kryostar @fediverse@lemmy.ml @fediverse@kbin.social

"you can announce your intention to defederate from them even before they launch."

I would want my instance to abide by its stated server rules, without exceptions either way. That may mean defederation of an instance if it doesn't ensure my instance's users are protected from transgressions by its users, but not defederation because of an expectation it won't. In case it proves necessary, defederation can be effected quickly enough.

[–] thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchange 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@sibrosan Like I say, opinions differ.

Why do you think so many trans and queer people -- who are very likely to be directly impacted by transgressions of the rules -- come to a different conclusion and advocate preemptively blocking?

See the "We're here, we're queer" section of https://privacy.thenexus.today/should-the-fediverse-welcome-surveillance-capitalism/#were-here-were-queer for more on that perspective.

@Kryostar @fediverse@lemmy.ml @fediverse@kbin.social

[–] sibrosan@mastodon.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@thenexusofprivacy @Kryostar @fediverse@lemmy.ml @fediverse@kbin.social

"Like I say, opinions differ"

Apparently. I prefer unbiased application of the server rules my instance advertises, as I based my decision to join it on those.

Other Mastodon users may prefer a certain bias, that's all right too.

[–] thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchange 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@sibrosan The server rules on your server explicitly prohibit transphobia.

So why do you see enforcing the rules by not federating with another server that's got a long history of transphobia as "bias"?

@Kryostar @fediverse@lemmy.ml @fediverse@kbin.social

[–] sibrosan@mastodon.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@thenexusofprivacy @Kryostar @fediverse@lemmy.ml @fediverse@kbin.social

> So why do you see enforcing the rules by not federating with another server that's got a long history of transphobia as "bias" <

IMO the rules should be enforced when they get broken, not preemptively due to an expectation they would.

No Meta server exists that uses ActivityPub, so if they set up one, it won't have a "long history of transphobia".

And when that server turns out to not behave, it can be defederated quickly enough.