11
submitted 1 year ago by giallo@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

The exchange is about Meta's upcoming ActivityPub-enabled network Threads. Meta is calling for a meeting, his response is priceless!

top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] nromdotcom@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

A 45 minute "round table" with multiple rando masto instance admins? That doesn't sound like enough time for the table to get very round.

It sounds more like 5 minutes introduction, 30 minute presentation by Meta, 10 minutes Q&A. But oops our presentation ran just a bit long, and I really do have a hard stop at noon so we really only have about 5 minutes for questions thanks for all of the valuable feedback we'll be sure to circle back offline.

[-] GeekFTW@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Ah, I see you've taken part in Bullshit Corporate Meetings™ before!

[-] SavvyWolf@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

"We here at Meta take people's privacy very seriously and are committed to protecting our users. Unfortunately at this time we can't discuss what measures we've put in place."

[-] dope@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Kinda shook at the Meta-supporting comments. They should not be anywhere near the fediverse. Meta is a business first and the users are the product. Companies now just want to maximize profits, minimize costs, and hoard wealth for... rocket ships? Fediverse itself is community-owned, independent, and decentralized.

With how new all of these controversies are, it's kinda baffling that people are still defending this company. They're going to continue to exploit anything and everything for profits. It wouldn't even surprise me if the genuine reason they're interested in this concept is because they want to take what's open-sourced, adapt it, and commercialize it. I would imagine they're thinking, 'why invest in a brand new backend when we can profit off of an existing one, unrestricted.' And this "meeting" that they're forming is basically a free forum for them to learn and ask questions about how they can exploit the Fediverse and find any way to profit off of it. "Off the record" anything is shady as fuck.

[-] bandario@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

What an absolute legend. Also, I do so solemnly swear that any instance caught federating with meta is going straight in my hosts file.

You have been warned.

[-] Silejonu@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago
[-] Bloonface@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

That statement is refreshingly sane. Really sick of the amount of heat over this situation and the lack of light.

[-] coin@asimon.org 0 points 1 year ago

@bandario @giallo Look at you being a big boy with big threats. Up until a month ago you and the instance you're in didn't even exist on the Fediverse. You think your empty intimidation tactics are going to work on anyone? Don't take this as me supporting Meta btw.

[-] bandario@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

Oh look, a tough guy behind his keyboard.

[-] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago

Idm meta joining tbh. At least this means your friends can be on something and you won't be obligated to use a meta app to talk to them, peer pressure, etc

[-] llama@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

Your first mistake is setting a minimum expectation for a Meta product. They've not promised it will do any of that and they already have you thinking it will based on nothing but rumor.

[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Until they pull an iOS sms situation, where non-iOS applications are missing their "exclusive features" and go as far as to break conversations through incompatibility, and then your friends are badgering you to "just join the 21st century and get an iphone already," but with Meta-branded apps. There's no way in hell Meta will play nicely with anything outside their ecosystem.

[-] madjo@geddit.social 0 points 1 year ago

On the one hand I can totally understand this reaction by Kev, on the other hand, by completely locking off all discussions like this, means that there's no way to change things for the better.

Granted, it's Meta, they're not to be trusted, but still, a discussion, if one has the time, wouldn't be too bad an idea.

[-] nameless_prole@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I think it would be incredibly naive and foolish to believe Meta has any kind of pure motives for this.

One of the biggest corporations in the world reaching out to its competitor to try to get them to talk "off the record" about "confidential details"... Sounds like a pretty blatant scheme to get them to reveal confidential details about their competitor's product.

Or maybe Meta has broken with decades of its own conduct, and several centuries of capitalism, in order to reach out in good faith to their competitor. LOL.

[-] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago

If Meta wants to make an app that is competitive with other fediverse apps and is actually good, I don't see the problem. If they want to harm other fediverse instances then I do. How much harm could they do to the fediverse? Would they then block off all other apps when their app is the biggest essentially?

[-] 108beads@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago

"If Meta wants…" My concern is that the only conceivable motivation Meta could have for investing money in such a project is making more money. If, in the process, Meta destroys the eco-structure of the Fediverse, so much the better—less competition, more money for them.

[-] llama@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

That's exactly it and there's no reason to pretend otherwise. Meta is a financial instrument to turn money into more money. The only reason Meta would engage with any third party is to make their commercial products more attractive to advertisers. Play with Meta and before you know if they'll be writing all the rules about how you're allowed to run your instance.

[-] KeavesSharpi@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

they could make their own custom version of the fediverse, slowly diverging from the core open source version, then push the actual fediverse into obscurity, the same way Google Chat killed XMPP. Imagine a new Meta-controlled "fediverse" where you can only have an instance if you use their code and their rules.

[-] benkinder@infosec.pub 0 points 1 year ago
[-] longshaden@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago

this was an excellent article. I'm old enough to remember being impacted by these events.

I'm not in Munich, but I remember trying to embrace OpenOffice, and telling my wife how pissed off I was that Microsoft wasn't following it's own open source document standard.

I remember Google killing XMPP, and there's also the more recent examples of what Facebook has done to WhatApp, Instagram, and the other potential competitors that got buried.

[-] arcticpiecitylights@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago

I really hope that we'll be able to maintain a strong resistance and fortification against Meta taking over the fediverse.

[-] Thedogspaw@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

Only defense is to defederate meta and any instance that chooses to federate with meta

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2023
11 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37603 readers
497 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS