The usual argument against pre-emptive defederation goes something like, “Well we should wait to see what kind of influence they will be on the fediverse.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook#Criticisms_and_controversies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_involving_Meta_Platforms
https://theintercept.com/2024/03/26/meta-gaza-censorship-warren-sanders/
We know what kind of influence they will be. They will be the most anti-consumer, exploitative influence the law will allow, and probably a little bit more than that, because it’s been their entire history, and every few days we get another headline confirming that it’s who they are.
And while there is a lot they can do even if many instances refuse to federate with them, there’s no good argument for going along willingly, IMO.
They will be the most anti-consumer, exploitative influence the law will allow
You’re right. They will. But there’s nothing they can influence. Laws be damned. No one owns ActivityPub.
there’s no good argument for going along willingly, IMO.
Except the one where, you know, you can use the Fediverse as an actual social media outlet where your friends and family are, public figures and all that, without subjecting yourself to ads and spying. I think that’s a pretty good one.
Oh and all of your friends and family can do the same, if they so choose.
No one owns ActivityPub
No, but they can become the biggest, most influential voice in how it contimues to develop.
The methods of regulatory capture work well beyond regulatory bodies.
Only if someone allows them to. ActivityPub exists to spite Meta, so I’d be very surprised if anyone allowed to them have any sort of negative influence.
I thought you were actually curious. We can agree to disagree.
I was curious if you had an explanation I hadn’t heard before.
Did you?Edit: Were you?
Did I what?
My fingers didn’t type what my brain was thinking, sorry. I can see how that makes no sense.
deleted by creator
