|
Top-level
@dansup Meta is a public company. That means it has shareholders. It has a fiduciary duty to those shareholders to maximize profit. The fediverse as it exists is one of if not the greatest threat to traditional centralized social media. That is a problem for a company that owns a few centralized platforms. Simply, Meta is not going to support it out of the goodness of their hearts. They are the biggest player in the field, and they intend to keep it that way. 5 comments
@grishka @dansup They know what they're doing, and it will go in one of two directions. Either they succeed, or they fail, in which case they shut it down before it causes them any harm. You don't become the biggest social media platform in the world by accident. Fiduciary duty is not a matter of employment, it is a matter of law. In Florida, where Meta is incorporated to my knowledge, executives and board members have a fiduciary duty.  It seems to me that, maybe, the optimal strategy is to create a new instance that will federate with fb, so we can counter their flood of ads with a flood of messages back into fb about how much better it is here? This would allow users to keep fb from data mining them by isolating, yet we can still recruit people away from that toxic cesspit.  Jeramee, privacy settings need to become a standard feature for ActivityPub servers. Can't spam you if you only allow PMs from people you follow. |
Gregory's Server
Tobias, there's a good chance they don't realize what they're getting into. When they do eventually come to that realization, it might be too late.
It's also worth noting that, at least according to my own understanding, there's no way to enforce that fiduciary duty. Meta is set up such that Zuckerberg can't be fired against his will no matter how badly shareholders want him gone.