@fosstodon I appreciate the measured and sensible approach by Fosstodon. Not the biggest fan of Facebook myself, but not gonna prejudge anything they may come out with, especially if it ends up being based on the same foundations of ActivityPub.

@fosstodon This is the right response. It's likely that Meta will not be a good player in the space and we should be ready to react to that but blocking them before there's any concrete evidence of what they're doing isn't helpful

@fosstodon this is the correct response. Good job

@fosstodon That sounds right to me. We judge #fediverse instances based on how they behave, not who they are.

That said, "who they are" in this case will justify more-careful and closer scrutiny, just like stock-market regulators keep a sharper eye on the biggest listings (because they can do the most damage).

@fosstodon The "wait and see" attitude seems very sensible, kudos to the @fosstodon team!

@fosstodon Good response!

I'd be hesistant to join any instance that signed the "block Meta" petition without second thought, because it shows a willingness to ignore the server rules and just moderate/block whatever the admins don't like.

I won't be surprised if Meta will fail (willingly?) to moderate their social network, and that most instances will end up blocking/limiting it. But blocking something that doesn't even exist yet would make Twitter's moderation look fair in comparison 😅

CC
@robertomurta @ulyssesalmeida
@rogawa

> TL;DR (if you can’t be bothered reading all of the below) - Fosstodon will wait and see what happens, but if Facebook’s new service introduces any privacy issues for our users, we will defederate.

@fosstodon Ah, another round of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish".

@fosstodon thanks. This reassures me that I'm in the right place.

FB/Meta is all about the amoral and immoral correlation and monetisation of publicly available personal data. The fediverse would be a tiny detail of that and Fosstodon would be a tiny detail of a tiny detail. Howling at our hosts is deeply misdirected. The only way of reshaping this reality is through public policy.

@fosstodon I think this pragmatic approach is the best way forward but this post only focuses on the privacy issue. In your future deliberations, I hope you will note ALL the dangers presented by Facebook joining.

Thank you for Fosstodon.

@fosstodon hi! A couole questions if you don't mind!
What would you consider privacy issues to your users?
How would that get detected?

I feel if we take the approach to wait and see we need to define a red line

@fosstodon this completely missed the point.

It doesn't matter if some, many or even most, misguidedly flagged privacy concerns.

What matters is who Meta are, not what they do when they are allowed in.

They should not be a part of something that was created as a response to their abusive, sociopathic and damaging business model. That admins think the folks who came here should "wait and see", is ridiculous IMO.

So I'm looking for instances that will block Meta right away.

Suggestions?

@fosstodon Thanks for posting and for the measured response.

@fosstodon here's my understanding on how federation works:

someone in fosstodon would need to follow a p92 account or boost/search their posts before these two servers are federated.

so what anti-meta mob asking is for admins to pre-emptively prevent their users from making contact with people on p92, just in case?

pls correct me if this is wrong...

@fosstodon "So if this service introduces any issues that could negatively impact our users, we will defederate."

Does that mean that you 2 will disappear from any Mastodon instance? Or does it mean that you will shutdown Fosstodon?