So Meta is up and running now on threads.net, news to me. Hell yeah, ban the crap out of them.
What is the benefit of “banning the crap out of them?”
This is how the tried and true agenda goes using Meta’s threads.net and the Fediverse as an example.
- Meta’s site gets wildly popular because of corporate backing
- Meta’s site does something on purpose to cause poor operability with the rest of the Fediverse
- People not on Meta’s site can no longer properly communicate with people on Meta’s site, they go to Meta’s site
- The Fediverse gets fractured and nobody cares because everyone is on Meta’s site
- Meta’s site is the sole survivor and the rest of the platform dies.
- Meta enshitifies their site as corporations typically do (think Twitter)
So yeah, ban the shit out of them. The proper term is defederate them, but do it with extreme prejudice.
Suspending them before they have actually done anything wrong is a bit like a pre-crime.
You don’t let pedophiles babysit your kids, and you don’t let Facebook federate with your social network.
It’s not like “they” are some unknown quantity though, it’s the Facebook people. It’s not weird or unreasonable for people to not want the company that got fined literally a billion euros for data privacy violations just a couple of months ago to get involved in a thing they like
I’m not on Facebook but I know people who are, and they are just ordinary people who made a poor choice and didn’t read the terms and conditions. It’s all those people who you are excluding, not just Facebook employees.
They already spread medical disinfo like wildfire, got someone who sold our state secrets to the highest bidder elected, and house sociopathic terrorists like libsoftiktok. That’s enough.
I’m still on the fence about that being a good thing. I’m kind of looking forward to being able to see Twitter style content from major companies but without ads via my Mastodon account.
that’s the thing, I see all content from major companies as ads.
