although this is unlikely to substantially and directly impact us and is a more immediate concern for Mastodon and similar fediverse software, we’ve signed the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact as a matter of principle. that pact pledges the following:

i am an instance admin/mod on the fediverse. by signing this pact, i hereby agree to block any instances owned by meta should they pop up on the fediverse. project92 is a real and serious threat to the health and longevity of fedi and must be fought back against at every possible opportunity

the maintainer of the site is currently a little busy and seems to manually add signatures so we may not appear on there for several days but here’s a quick receipt that we did indeed sign it.

  • static@kbin.social
    0·
    1 year ago

    I’m not shure, there are a few good arguments against plain blocking of Meta.

    This article is mostly against federating
    https://privacy.thenexus.today/should-the-fediverse-welcome-surveillance-capitalism/

    it does highlight contra’s:

    John Gruber describes the Anti-Meta Pact as “petty and deliberately insular” and suggests that the whole point of ActivityPub is to turn social networking into something more akin to email, which he describes as "truly open."1

    Tristan Louis says "The anti-Meta #Fedipact can only achieve one thing: make sure that #ActivityPub loses to the Bluesky protocol."2

    Dan Gillmor suggests that “preemptively blocking them – and the people already using them – from your instance guarantees less relevance for the fediverse.”

    • alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.orgOPMEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      counterpoint:

      1. we don’t like Meta
      2. we have very specific goals on this instance that Meta is totally antithetical to
      3. we’re quite open about not being open-fed with everyone and this is not out of character nor a contradiction of previous blocks we’ve made
      4. our priorities are not “fediverse first” or “ActivityPub first”, they’re Beehaw first. the fediverse and ActivityPub are mostly tools for us to an end, and we don’t accept some obligation to prioritize the greater health of those over our own thing.
      5. even if you don’t care about the rest of that simple logistics prevail here–we absolutely don’t want to be responsible for potentially tens or hundreds of millions of additional users. that is not a thing we can ever commit to, and we will almost certainly sooner shut down the instance or completely defederate than eat that influx (particularly with Lemmy’s limitations right now).

      overall, i would say this falls into the camp of “not a thing we’re realistically going to reconsider”.