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

  • Wizard@lemmy.dustybeer.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    1 year ago

    What a horrible click-bait title. No one and nothing was “destroyed” here. He replied in a polite manner to a company whose goals do not align with his own.

  • marco@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Reports of Meta’s Destruction Greatly Exaggerated”

    OK, it’s one of my pet peeves that every fricking disagreement is headlined as X destroyed Y. Click-bait is the bane of the internet and makes everything worse. Don’t participate.

    I’m glad Kev got to speak their mind, but I highly doubt this changed anything meaningful over at Zuck HQ.

      • llama@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Seriously, if you want to see them squirm, hit them with a wall of silence. They clearly feel they need something and, for Meta, negative feedback is better than no feedback at all.

  • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    An infamously vicious predator walks up and bares its fangs at us, and half of you want to pet it instead of fleeing for your lives.

    It’s hard to overstate my disappointment right now.

  • nromdotcom@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    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.

    • SavvyWolf@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      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.”

      • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unfortunately at this time we can’t discuss what measures we’ve put in place…

        Because we have none, as it’s counteractive to our revenue models.

  • dope@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    edit-2
    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.

    • llama@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly, off the record means the expectation is Meta will be given free expertise to gain an edge on their competitors. Don’t give diddly squat to actors who want to commercialize your content. It will never end well for you, only Meta.

      • Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also: why would you want to discuss confidential information in the presence of Meta of all companies? Their reputation precedes them.

        The only confidential information about the fediverse that I can see is account information. And maybe metrics. But most metrics can be gathered by polling APIs of servers anyway. It’s an open system, unless they defederate with you.

        • StrayCatFrump@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          IMO the “confidential” part is that they want to offer this person some kind of deal to shut their shit down or assimilate. Basically, they’re going to offer to “buy them out” (though that phrase doesn’t seem completely appropriate to the non-corporate world, so it’s a little weird to use it).

    • hellequin67@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I sincerely hope that as many admins as possible instantly defederate from metas instance if they ever launch one.

    • marco@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They have done nothing to earn open community’s cooperation. On the contrary, they have not atoned for weakening democracy in countries all over the world AND distributing powerful data about its users both for money and by inadequate security.

      OK, I’m just using fancy words to say Fuck You, Meta and Zuck in particular.

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

        'Member when the Zuck assured everyone that Facebook cared deeply about their privacy, and then immediately turned around and quietly implemented features where people had to opt-out of sharing all their shit (when opting out was even an option at all), and those users didn’t even know it?

        Ah, the good ol’ days. And I don’t even resent it because I was personally affected. I’ve never had a FB account, and I just watched from the sidelines as it affected people I know and love and the broader online community as a whole.

      • luckystarr@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        We should bake it into the software (Lemmy, Kbin, Mastodon, etc.) as a first line of defense. If you want to federate, you’d have to fork the server first.

    • pips@lemmy.film
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree, the decentralized aspect is a huge plus and makes this system . But I think the OP’s approach is fundamentally misguided and I have my suspicions for a few reasons.

      1. It’s a 45 minute meeting that provides an insight into Meta’s operations. There’s no need to contribute anything, just sit back and listen.

      2. There’s no reason to post about this and brag about it now. Compare this with what Christian did when Reddit tried to claim Apollo was blackmailing them. There’s no leverage now, just some internet points.

      3. We have one email and a response. Was there any further communication? How do we know this is all that was said? I could go further and question the legitimacy of this screencap but I’m willing to give OP the benefit of the doubt here.

      4. As others have pointed out, how does shutting them out completely stay in keeping with fediverse principles? This is legitimate question since, to me, it seems like despite the risks, it’s antithetical to the spirit of the fediverse until they demonstrate bad behavior here.

      5. To quote OP’s email, “Zero interest in having a conversation with #Meta 'off the record or otherwise.” “Otherwise” here is…on the record. So OP also won’t meet with them in a completely open meeting?

      Look, I get it, I dislike Meta too. But this just seems like a misstep and bragging for zero actual gain.

      • longshaden@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago
        1. As others have pointed out, how does shutting them out completely stay in keeping with fediverse principles? This is legitimate question since, to me, it seems like despite the risks, it’s antithetical to the spirit of the fediverse until they demonstrate bad behavior here.

        how much bad behavior do you want to see before accepting that MetaZuck is evil and has no go intentions?

        There’s a literal trail of dead startups and bodies.

  • llama@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    FB: We’re confused why someone would sign up for a social media site set up by somebody in their dorm room, tell us how to be more like you.

  • tinselpar@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    This conversation will be off the record, as the team may discuss confidential details that should not be discussed with others

    Translation: Nobody needs to know how much money we offer you as a bribe.

    • Karlos_Cantana@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      My guess is that anyone attending will have to sign an NDA. That will make it hard to speak out against Meta joining the federation. If someone does say anything, the Meta lawyers will destroy them.

  • Takatakatakatakatak@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    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.

  • StrayCatFrump@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s hilarious for Meta to invite some person who happens to run a server to an “off the record” conversation with “confidential details that should not be shared with others” anyway. LOL.

    The only “confidential” information that’s likely to be involved in such an exchange would be some kind of bribe for the person to shut down or assimilate their infrastructure with Meta’s. It’s not like they’re going to reveal Meta’s trade secrets to someone they believe to essentially be a competitor or anything.

  • nzodd@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    I find it a tad amusing that this news about Facebook’s latest attempt at fucking over the Fediverse is where I hear about the pixelfed project for the first time.

    • llama@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yep they’ll be a good actor until they’re the biggest instance and they’ll try to turn the fediverse into whatever verse they’re feeling like that week and shove it down our throats. We’ll end up right back here in 3 years of we choose as a community to federate (i.e. give free content) to Meta.