 I would be much more supportive of a "Block Fediverse participants that do / don't do X" proposal than a "Block Meta" proposal. E.g. Do: respect posters' indexing/not wishes. Don't: attach adverts to posts. etc. Then it becomes clear what Meta has to do to participate, and what everybody else has to do, and that can change over time. 6 comments
@lps Google saying something is a unilateral thing by them. We saying "we can be friends but you need to behave, otherwise bye" is something different IMHO. It may not lead to a friendship with Meta, but perhaps others.  @lps You are misunderstanding what I'm saying. Two steps: 1) clearly articulate the rules for everybody 2) Determine who does and does not follow the rules at any point in time. Including but not limited to Meta. The rules may, for example, state that you must not have been fined by a major regulator for privacy violations in the last N years. I think this is ultimately a much more productive, and perhaps just, approach than simply banning company X.  @J12t It depends on the goals. It makes a lot of sense for instances that do want to federate with Meta -- in fact I suggested two similar criteria to @tchambers as red lines. But for instances that don't want to federate with Meta under any circumstances, that's just giving them a roadmap on what short-term tradeoffs to make and what lies to tell to suck more people in. |
Gregory's Server
@J12t sadly, that's like saying google, don't be evil... Yep:(