Discussion: Support the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact
For some time, there have been rumors that Meta (Facebook) has plans to impose itself on the Fediverse. These rumors have recently been confirmed, with the news that Meta is developing a clone of Mastodon, referred to as "Project 92", "Barcelona", or "Threads", and that it has had a meeting with the administrators of several large Mastodon instances, possibly including Eugen Rochko, while silencing them with a non-disclosure agreement.
Meta is an oligopoly that has aggressively sought to control social media, through absorption of other social media companies, and through policies of "embrace, extend, and extinguish", as with the RSS and XMPP protocols. Meta, through Facebook, is infamous for condoning the spread of far right ideology and of dangerous misinformation.
There have been calls for pre-emptively blocking Meta's project. In particular, @vantablack@beach.city, administrator of a small Mastodon instance, beach.city, has proposed the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact.
I see our best hope in collective resistance.
Therefore, I would like us to discuss whether we should support this move, and if so, how best to do so. As a starting point for discussion, I suggest the following:
Social.Coop commits to blocking any Fediverse instances that Meta creates.
We, as a body, sign the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact.
We follow up by collectively drafting and issuing a public statement.
(As I have not been active in Social.Coop discussions, I hope that the way I am presenting this is appropriate, and I welcome constructive criticism.)
Scott McGerik
Tue 20 Jun 2023 12:53AM
This seems to be an anti-Meta proposal. I'm with @richjensen in asking if there are "underlying principles that might set criteria for taking such action against other actors?"
I'm looking for general priniciples beyond "I don't like this entity for this and that reason". That said, I don't like Meta for nearly every reason stated in this conversation.
Eduardo MercovichWed 21 Jun 2023 7:27PM
@Scott McGerik
I like it, and we can keep forward on that path on a very positive way.
We will federate with anyone who:
supports diversity and respectful dialog,
doesn't allow any type of discrimination based on any personal characteristics (origin, sexual preferences, skin tone, etc.).
guards and takes care about the personal and private information of the people in it's instance.
-
etc.
All these values are written and should be signed by the person/s responsible for the instance/s (somehow identified, at least as an account responsible in the instance). Those signatures creates a "white list" of instances that federate that can be automatically added to all those who already signed it before.
(sorry the lousy writing, English is not my native language and I'm extremely tired, but didn't wanted to leave this for the last moment).
Nithin Coca @ncoca
Tue 20 Jun 2023 1:22AM
I'm not entirely on board yet. This could be a bridge to bring more Meta users onto the metaverse, if there was a simple way to transfer to another host. I haven't had a FB account in 10+ years, so definitely not a Meta fan,.
Brian VaughanTue 20 Jun 2023 1:56AM
@Nithin Coca ncoca As I recall from switching instances to social.coop, the transfer required configuration on both ends. Meta could simply refuse to support that, or support it initially and later stop supporting it. Part of my concern is my memory of how Facebook, and Google, treated XMPP, in the classic example of "embrace, extend, extinguish". Both, initially, used XMPP as the basis for their chat clients, and supported federation with other XMPP servers. (Some computer games did this as well.) This meant that you could use your preferred client on your preferred server, and still communicate with Facebook and Google members. Later, Facebook and Google added unique features to their proprietary chat services, making federation more complicated and less reliable. Later, they fully de-federated. This was a major blow to XMPP, which had been rapidly growing in usage.
Rich JensenTue 20 Jun 2023 10:20PM
@Brian Vaughan This is a valuable historical example of the hazard. Thanks for articulating it. You are helping to persuade me toward taking FAANG / MAANA's persistent strategic attacks on the digital commons into account. I would probably support formation of a 'defederate-first' negotiating coalition with a specific set of demands FAANG-like entities would have to meet.
On another tangent, given the history of demonstrable damage. I wonder if there is any reparations provision that might be offered as a demand?
Matt NoyesTue 20 Jun 2023 1:26AM
My fear is that through repressive tolerance Meta and others will leave us alone as they colonize the fediverse, enclosing open spaces just as they have done throughout the existence of GAFAM.
HarrisTue 20 Jun 2023 2:08AM
I’m open to discussion on this subject but I’m not at this point convinced Meta joining the Fediverse would be definitively bad and if it meant more of my friends joining the Fediverse, I’d struggle to be happy blocking them all.
Scott JensonTue 20 Jun 2023 3:16AM
The Fediverse is meant to be open. We need to live these values. If Meta behaves inappropriately, then certainly ban them, but let's wait and see. Let's be the positive roles modes, even with instances we don't agree with.
Jonas KanafaniTue 20 Jun 2023 3:41AM
I don't think blocking proactively will help.
Meta can get our data if they want anyway. This is an open social network.
If meta brings 1B+ users to fedi, there will be people we'll want to interact with. As long as meta behaves positively by respecting the standards of activitypub, allowing true positive interaction, we should allow it. If they start deviating from the standard in an EEE move, then we can de federate them. This could be a policy that applies generally, not just for meta.
Scott McGerik ·Tue 20 Jun 2023 12:56AM
Two principles that I see in the sense check are:
Opposition to entities that condone the spread of anti-democratic ideologies
Opposition to the spread of dangerous misinformation (dangerous needs to be defined)