• cyd@vlemmy.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 year ago

    To me, the argument for accepting Meta into the Fediverse goes beyond gain and loss. What it boils down to is that if you run an Internet service, you have a moral obligation to make a good faith attempt to interoperate with anyone who’s using the protocol as intended.

    By a similar token, if you run a mail server, you should accept SMTP connections as far as possible. Yes, you can ban spam, but you should not ban connections from Gmail even if Gmail is a privacy-destroying bad idea. By all means, allow individual users to set up their own block lists, but this should not be done at the server level.

      • cyd@vlemmy.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure, just like you can run an SMTP server that blocks incoming connections from Gmail. It’s not illegal, obviously, but it goes against the spirit of an open, interoperable internet.

        • Five@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          1 year ago

          Clients are filtered out of the federated email system all the time. In fact, the major email distributors are so block-happy, it’s difficult to run a private email server anymore. If you want to guarantee your email gets through, you’re basically forced to use a major webmail client. If Facebook is allowed into the community, that will happen to ActivityPub too.

          Allowing large corporations to leverage their resources to dominate the Fediverse goes against the spirit of an open, interoperable internet.

        • Qazwsxedcrfv000@lemmy.unknownsys.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree with you on that. That’s why I find this anti-Meta pact or manifesto or whatever naive and premature.

          Just if there are people who insist on banning anything Meta, they are welcome to do so in their instances. Interoperability is still preserved. They are not adding anything to the protocol. Banning instances is part of the interoperability. I think this is where our opinion differs.

          • drkt@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Just if there are people who insist on banning anything Meta, they are welcome to do so in their instances.

            Isn’t that what we’re doing? We can’t stop Meta from federating, that’s not a function of the protocols. We’re building a pact to defederate them from our instances.

          • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            A lot of people came to Mastodon because it was a safe space for queer and marginalized communities after being driven away by the lack of moderation and ability to keep them safe on places like Facebook and Twitter.

            There’s good reason to be suspicious.

    • Shhalahr@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      To me, the argument for accepting Meta into the Fediverse goes beyond gain and loss. If you run an Internet service, you have a moral obligation to make a good faith attempt to interoperate with anyone using the protocol as intended.

      But that’s the thing: We don’t trust that Meta will be using the protocol “as intended”.

        • mycelium_underground@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Don’t forget that they have an obligation to their shareholders to continually grow profits. While their past is a red flag, being a publicly traded corp means that they will do everything that they can to keep alternatives from taking there market share.

        • sznio@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Meta already had federated with XMPP back in the day, then dropped it when it was convenient.

          They are gonna do the same for the fediverse. All they want from us is the starter content so that their service isn’t empty for the first two months. They literally don’t want to do the work that reddit founders had to do - generate content and pretend there are users to a new blank platform. After that the federation features are going to become legacy.

          Not cooperating with corpos is a matter of principles.