697

it could happen to you rule (lemmy.cafe)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by spujb@lemmy.cafe to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

146 comments fedilink hide all child comments

see if your instance is one of them here: https://fedipact.veganism.social/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

i think i’d 100% agree with you if: a) the fediverse wasn’t majority public facing b) meta’s past failures hadn’t impacted the material conditions and safety of real people

i get your comparisons to gmail and phone providers, but to me those two differences are fundamental. gmail is private, your phone is private, but social media is public and can be used to stir up massive misinformation campaigns, harrassment, or calls to violence.

on the same level, if any evidence that gmail or my phone provider had willingly participated in calls to violence which resulted in rape and murder, i also would want that institution to be excluded in order to guarantee the safety of my local instance’s members as well as to stop letting them profit from my existence on a federated platform.

these are the key differences that i am taking into account when i call for not federating with meta on a majority scale. what are your thoughts on them?

[-] npz@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

I think these are fair points. and I can't say I blame anyone for wanting Meta/FB out of their life entirely. I see value in both options - the option of having maximum connectivity to others, and the option of having only parties that are considered to be in good ethical standing. And I'm glad the fediverse can offer both options to everyone. For me personally, having communications cut between users based on who is hosting their instance is a last resort.