Kev Quirk (@kev@fosstodon.org)
fosstodon.org
Attached: 1 image Yeah, that's gonna be a hard pass from me thanks, Rachel. Zero interest in having a conversation with #Meta "off the record" or otherwise. Sharing this purely to be as transparent as possible with our members.

The exchange is about Meta’s upcoming ActivityPub-enabled network Threads. Meta is calling for a meeting, his response is priceless!

  • Bloonface@kbin.social
    5·
    1 year ago

    For some reason, your link doesn’t work.

    The second part of your comment doesn’t answer my question, nor would “they want our data!!!” explain why Meta would want or need to create an instance in order to get it, or how the “data” (what data? Your posts? The ones that ActivityPub syndicates to hundreds of other servers automatically? Do you know exactly which servers your posts are on at the moment?) of other users on other fedi instances could somehow be “monetised” by them.

      • Bloonface@kbin.social
        3·
        1 year ago

        OK, I’ve read that link and it still doesn’t really explain how exactly Meta intends to monetise other peoples’ posts - “collect data from and monetise”, how exactly are they going to monetise other peoples’ posts on other instances, when they have no ability to e.g. serve ads to those people?

          • QHC@kbin.social
            3·
            1 year ago

            I don’t think anyone is questioning your cynicism of Meta’s intentions or motivations, but the nature of the Fediverse is specifically designed to make it very difficult (if not impossible) for any one party to control the entire thing. It’s a question of how not if.

            The worst thing I could see is something like the development of React where FB has an overwhelming advantage in sheer resources and ends up having a major influence on the direction of software trends. But that would still just be a popularity thing and would not actively stop anyone from doing their own thing. Maybe there is something in the license for ActivityPub that would let them pull a Google-vs-Oracle reverse engineering, but again that won’t stop other instances or developers from ignoring them if they wanted.

            • ZeldaKnK@lemmy.ninja
              4·
              1 year ago

              Here’s the rundown:

              1. Meta joins fediverse
              2. Meta introduces convenient, cool and innovative features not originally on fediverse code
              3. Everyone wants new features, but features are locked under propietary code.
              4. Everyone flocks to meta’s instance.
              5. Meta is now the fediverse and the fediverse is nothing but a husk of its former self
              • rbits@lemmy.fmhy.ml
                1·
                1 year ago

                What? Defederating doesn’t fix that.

                1. Meta doesn’t join the fediverse
                2. Meta introduces convenient, cool and innovative features not originally on fediverse code
                3. Everyone wants new features, but features are locked under propietary code.
                4. Everyone flocks to meta’s product.
                5. Meta is now the fediverse and the fediverse is nothing but a husk of its former self

                The solution is 1: to make sure users understand that it’s a bad idea to flock to meta’s instance, and 2: to implement that feature in the fediverse if everyone likes it so much they’re willing to leave. The solution is not defederating now because of the posibbilty that they do that in the future.

            • luckystarr@feddit.de
              1·
              1 year ago

              It’s not cynicism if the other party has a track record of behaving in an anti-competitive manner. The Fediverse became a competitor once it showed non-negligible growth.

              It’s not cynicism, it’s weariness.