You must log in or register to comment.
I know we all dream of having all our friends and family on the Fediverse
I honestly have to say that this isn’t remotely part of my dream. I couldn’t care less about the friends and families that are using facebook. They can contact me over E-Mail or over my phone. If they want to stay in touch even more, come join Discord or leave it be, simple as that.
If it wasn’t for those alternative social media, I wouldn’t even use social media at all.
Am I in the minority for thinking like that?
I prefer to keep online forums anonymous. People can’t be nervous to speak their mind.
Joke’s on you, thanks to cripplingly low self-esteem and intrusive paranoid thoughts, I am always nervous to speak my mind.
I prefer talking to my folks over the phone or in person. Those who only want to communicate via social media are not important enough to me to deal with all that stuff.
I prefer talking to my folks over the phone or in person. Those who only want to communicate via social media are not important enough to me to deal with all that stuff.
We should not try to include as many people as we can at all cost. We should be honest and ensure people join the Fediverse because they share some of the values behind it.
Exactly my thoughts on this topic.
We should be honest and ensure people join the Fediverse because they share some of the values behind it.
How could that be done? Anyone with the resources can host an instance, and there are plenty of instances with a low entry bar.
If the fediverse grows enough, we can be sure some entities will join not because they share our values, but because they see our value.
I don’t see how we could prevent that or ensure only good guys enter. The fediverse is open by design.
@Spzi @Hotchpotch I’d say we probably can’t ensure it—however it certainly wouldn’t won’t happen if we push everyone to use it at all costs as they said. Not that I think you’re advocating for that.
The article is not about single persons who might be trolls or whatever to qualify as a “bad guy”. But about megacorporations like Meta. The best way to deal with them is-in my opinion-to not cooperate and defederate them as soon as they start to enter.
The article is not about single persons who might be trolls or whatever to qualify as a “bad guy”. But about megacorporations like Meta.
Yes, sorry for being unclear. I meant the bad ‘guy’ Meta. Maybe continuing with ‘entity’ would have been better:
we can be sure some entities will join
ensure only good entities enter
The best way to deal with them is-in my opinion-to not cooperate and defederate them as soon as they start to enter.
I tend to agree. Still quite new to the topic.
answered to myself accidently.
Good article, but XMPP got back on track and is small but quite nice these days. Learn more here: https://joinjabber.org
I strongly agree with the author. But at the same time nobody can and should block Meta from joining.
Will that kill all this?
The teaching I get from this is: Dont let Meta dictate the protocol. As soon as they become incompatible, let them stay incompatible until they follow. And be happy with the users who were smart enough to stay with the reliable platform.
This won’t work if Meta gains enough users to swing their weight around. Microsoft does the same thing with Embrace, Extend, Extinguish and it’s not something to just ignore.
Individual instance owners can block Meta instances from federating (exchanging data), and they absolutely, 100% should do so. If enough instances block Meta, it’ll be like they don’t even exist.
The bigger issue is that corporations can present a united front, while federations cannot. This is why hegemonic forces tend to win; as the author says, there’s already division among kbin/Lemmy users about whether blocking Meta is a good idea. You can be damn sure there isn’t similar division among Facebook leadership about whether to destroy kbin/Lemmy.
