this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2023
970 points (79.0% liked)
Fediverse
28748 readers
14 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It only relates to Threads, exactly becaise they are an enemy of freedom.
Just as you can't afford to tolerate intolerance, you shouldn't give freedom to thos who want to strip it away from you.
There's nothing of elitism in that.
"An enemy of freedom". ๐
I mean can you be more cliche?
Or maybe, out of the 3 Billion active users on Facebook each month, you, and many others, are focused on fucked up shit. Because, shock and horror, everyone is gripped by the propaganda of the group. Welcome to being part of a biological social species.
Just for a moment consider the following. Facebook priorities posts that get engagement, they don't care about morality and fairness and they won't stop untill it is illegal to do so.
I don't absolve them of their responsibility, but you attributed malicious intent when stupidity and profit is only needed.
I never implied there's an evil master plan behind it.
I implied that when greed prevails, any other consideration, freedom included, get bulldozed. And at that point you can safely assume they are enemy of freedom - they don't have to promote authoritarianism, it's enough for them to benefit from a system that strips us from our freedoms, and happily keep operating.
No, you literally said that Facebook is evil, because you said, with grammatically corrections "Facebook is against freedom". And don't try to argue that this is a difference or semantic.
Facebook doesn't give a shit about your ideology, it only wants likes because that improves its influence. Be that capitalism's influence or socialists influence.
Nope, I said Facebook is an enemy of freedom. And that doesn't mean their primary goal is to strip it away, it means the way they operate goes against freedom and they don't mind it.
If tomorrow aliens will militarily invade in search for resources, and will entirely disregard any human pain and suffering along the way as they destroy everything and everyone, will they stop being enemies of humanity simply due to the fact they're not here for genocide per se?
Elitism: the advocacy or existence of an elite as a dominating element in a system or society.
What you just described is exactly how elitism works. I understand the hate for Facebook and all of Meta's products. However, this is exactly how gate keeping starts. I don't want to see the fediverse go anywhere more than the next person but it becomes contradicting and hypocritical to the entire establishment of the fediverse if Lemmy or other federated apps begin to decide who can and can't be federated. That is the whole image right? To prevent gate keeping and to establish that not one person owns any one portion of Lemmy, Mastodon, etc. However, what happens when an entity on Lemmy does start deciding to defederate a Conglomerate starts making decisions just like Facebook? The does Lemmy not start fitting the bill of not being able to tolerate the intolerance as well? To me that becomes elitism the very thing Lemmy users swear is a perfect system.
I don't believe Meta is good for anyone or anything but Lemmy users need to understand that you can't say, "we are different." And then justifying the very contradiction of being exactly the same by just saying, "Facebook takes freedom." I don't like Facebook infact fuck them but either Lemmy users admit they need to play the game like Facebook and that someone controls who is a part of content and who isn't or they don't. Just stop trying to find ways that this would be "different" just fucking say, "we want to control the content that is on the platform and who can be a part of it." Because now you are playing the Meta game on their own terf. Just tired of Lemmy users thinking they are special.
This is not means for control seizure; in fact, barely any Lemmy admins can afford to exercise their powers against users, as everyone can effortlessly move to another instance.
This is a matter of protection, and you can't fight Meta without it.
It's like doing nothing with wolves attacking sheep, because "if you attack wolves, you won't be that different from them". No, you would be. We should do it and we have users' support - and the best admins can do is open a vote, which was conducted on many instances (and had pretty much one outcome: defederate).
I find it bizarre you think the mere possibility of users from a big corporate service being able to communicate with the fediverse is akin to wolves attacking sheep.
If you really need your echo chamber to be free of people who use Meta servers, you could just block them as a user without mandating everyone else do so too.
There's nothing wrong with the people.
There is a lot wrong with Meta.
Single-user effort will only get you so far; blocking Threads individually will break user experience (as most interactions, not just posts, will originate from Threads), and embracing Threads will inevitably lead to downturn in Fedi-native communities, further drying what just began to grow.
I can block content from Threads, but I cannot block the influence Threads exert on fedi. This is why servers need to defederate - to protect and preserve the community from any influence Zuck can singlehandedly exert.
At the same time, I welcome all Threads users to register on Mastodon and become Fedi natives. This would be the best outcome possible.