• Shhalahr@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    To me, the argument for accepting Meta into the Fediverse goes beyond gain and loss. If you run an Internet service, you have a moral obligation to make a good faith attempt to interoperate with anyone using the protocol as intended.

    But that’s the thing: We don’t trust that Meta will be using the protocol “as intended”.

    • Paco Hope #BLM@infosec.exchange
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      @Shhalahr if everyone has a good faith obligation then that includes Meta, too. I don’t think anyone familiar with their history should think they act in good faith. Isn’t that the essential question? Why should we even believe them at first, given how many promises they have broken and how consistently they change their mind?

      • mycelium_underground@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t forget that they have an obligation to their shareholders to continually grow profits. While their past is a red flag, being a publicly traded corp means that they will do everything that they can to keep alternatives from taking there market share.

      • sznio@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Meta already had federated with XMPP back in the day, then dropped it when it was convenient.

        They are gonna do the same for the fediverse. All they want from us is the starter content so that their service isn’t empty for the first two months. They literally don’t want to do the work that reddit founders had to do - generate content and pretend there are users to a new blank platform. After that the federation features are going to become legacy.

        Not cooperating with corpos is a matter of principles.