Fedi.Tips 🎄 (@[email protected])
mstdn.social
1. Meta/Facebook has a horrific track record on human rights: - https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/ethiopia-facebook-algorithms-contributed-human-rights-abuses-against-tigrayans - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-sue-facebook-myanmar-genocide-us-uk-legal-action-social-media-violence - https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17587080/mark-zuckerberg-holocaust-denial-kara-swisher-interview 2. Meta/Facebook is trying to join the Fediverse. We need to defederate them. 3. If you're a server admin, please defederate Meta's domain "threads.net" (here's how on Mastodon https://fedi.tips/how-to-defederate-fediblock-a-server-on-mastodon/) 4. If you don't run your own server, please ask your server admin to defederate "threads.net". Your admin is listed on your server website's About page.

Meta just announced that they are trying to integrate Threads with ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, etc.). We need to defederate them if we want to avoid them pushing their crap into fediverse.

If you’re a server admin, please defederate Meta’s domain “threads.net”

If you don’t run your own server, please ask your server admin to defederate “threads.net”.

  • @EtherWhackEnglish
    11•7 months ago

    Honest discourse for the purpose of highlighting any possible issues and fortifying against the EEE process. (Prepare for war; hope for peace):

    Let’s say they were able to join… (We should at the very least go over this possibility, as it can also help our admins decide.) How would we be able to protect our network?

    Would making sure any features of one instance/app be open and able to be modified and/or gracefully integrated into another be an option? (similar to the GPL license) An example would be keeping a party from restricting access to a private network only through their app. (looking at you, gTalk and iMessage)

    Any other suggestions?

      • @EtherWhackEnglish
        2•7 months ago

        I thought AGPL only makes sure that a modification from the original must be released, and doesn’t cover new unmodified software that would connect to a server.

        A company like meta could easily design their own product from scratch that would also have it’s own network and just a simple plugin that can communicate with the fediverse. Wouldn’t this could be a way for them to skirt around sec. 13 of the AGPL.

        • @[email protected]English
          2•7 months ago

          design their own product from scratch

          I think you’re right, even regardless of the license involved. One of my profs in school had told us nothing is stopping anyone from writing a whole new Microsoft Word, feature for feature, button for button the same. And in fact, look at Libre Office - a MS Word clone.

          The missteps to avoid when creating a whole new clone are:

          1. Don’t rip off actual implementation code from the original and put it in your own product (this is a bigger concern w/ OSS since anyone can rip of pieces without giving credit)

          2. Avoid confusing users that your clone is somehow an extension/iteration of the original (e.g. ripping off branding, or sound-alike names)

          have it’s own network and just a simple plugin that can communicate with the fediverse

          Mastodon uses the ActivityPub protocol, which is an opensource API. The US supreme court has ruled that implementing an API is fair use, copyrights do not come into play here.

          So I think the only recourse for avoiding Meta and it’s Thread foray, is defederating it on a per instance basis.

          I fear this might turn real ugly, similar to how Google got in the browser game, dominated, and is now doing evil and shitty things like manifest v3 and WEI.