The recent debate and decision by world to federate with threads seems to have sparked massive pro meta propaganda. Some accounts post completely one sided articles nearly every day, using carefully crafted language to shape meta as the „facilitator“ of the fediverse and some ~~beligerent~~ benevolent god. You dont have to scroll far in this community to find the posts I‘m talking about.

Please consider reporting these posts for the propaganda they are and asking your admins to defederate from threads.net.

To show you why meta is not welcome in the fediverse, here is a quote from the fedipact which is the reason I have defederated threads in my own instance.

THEIR LONG TRACK RECORD OF PURE EVIL

i'm just gonna paste some links here because there's no point in paraphrasing what others have already said more eloquently

(if you're wondering why i'm using archive.org it's to break the fucking paywalls on these articles because fuck that, information wants to be free)

that time they helped facilitate a genocide

that time they helped try to rig an election

that time they did creepy behavioral experimentation on their users

so, yeah. there's legiterally shitloads of precedent here. not to mention all the privacy concerns. which brings us to the need many feel to protect ourselves from this insidious megacorp...

Against one thing meta-shills often try to ascribe: we dont have a problem with the people on there but it is literally everything else.

Admins and Mods who read this, please consider signing the fedipact on https://fedipact.online

Thank you very much for reading and have a nice day.

Edit: wording, crossed out

(page 2) 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] yo_scottie_oh@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

beligerent god (sic)

You mean beneficent?

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] dameoutlaw@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Provide proof! I call BS. I see why more anti-Meta posts and pushing it on people. Anywhere here can search and you’ll find it. It dominates any conversations about Meta

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Nope. I‘m entitled to my opinion without providing proof. But good luck with that attitude.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] blue_berry@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I think this is generally a valid point of view. However, what I don't like is to frame it as a easy-to-make-point, something that is basically obvious. Because it isn't, mainly, because of network effects.

Not opening up to Meta means prevent the Fediverse from becoming a global thing. Not opening up to Meta means not to shape the future of the social web.

If you have this opinion, you implicitly say that you want the Fediverse to stay small. However, I think we can all agree that it would be good if the Fediverse became big. And the only possibility to achieve that is through the growth through Meta, which doesn't mean working together with it, but profiting from it and cutting in its growth (which admittedly, will not be easy as well and, as you pointed out, also comes with its own moral drawbacks, which have to be thought of, too).

Meta is not cool. But it won't help to hide away in a shelter until the whole thing has blown over. Because it won't. All that will happen is that the part that opened up to Meta will grow rapidly and the other part will stay small and become less relevant. In this sense, now is the best time to drive change in the social web, until it is again dominated by Meta. Now we still have the choice to join and work against Meta in the social web.

Just because you federate doesn't necessarily mean that you work together with it. But if you hide away, you leave the whole field of action up to Meta without even trying. Apart from the fact that it's barely explainable to anyone outside the Fediverse. They will and already do blame us of double-standards: why create an open protocoll if the ecosystem wants to stay small anyways?

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments