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
    63
    ·
    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
    59
    ·
    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.

  • dope@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    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
      15
      ·
      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
        8
        ·
        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
          4
          ·
          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.

    • Jeze3D@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because tons of Lemmy/Kbin users are still addicted to Facebook/Instagram. They’ll defend their drug dealer to the death.

  • llama@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    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.

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

  • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    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.

    • Jeze3D@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most ot the users here still have Facebook/Instagram accounts they use daily. They like to talk up the fediverse but also post minion memes to their grandma. It’s kinda sad, but it is what it is, and that’s why you see so many Meta defenders.

  • nromdotcom@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    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
      14
      ·
      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
        6
        ·
        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.

    • marco@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      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 due to being 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.

  • Silviecat44@vlemmy.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think they “destroyed” Meta. Meta was polite and they were passive aggressive? What is there to celebrate?

  • BuxtonWater@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Meta is going for a price run on failure it feels like, I worked for a company bought out by (no names to prevent breaking my NDA) them super publically and then a year or so later firing 90% of the staff and replacing them (for no reason) and leaving a skeleton crew.

    And as expected things have just been on a steady decline ever since. The people running the show at Meta have to be off their rocks on coke.

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

        That’s the thing though, it’s still around and getting marketed by them as one of their major products. So they’re beating a dead horse that they shot to death themself really.

    • 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.

      • luckystarr@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        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.

    • llama@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      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.

  • Metacortechs@lemmy.stellarvortex.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    This has me thinking, is there a space set aside for putting profits over people instances out and center so admins can preemptively defederate and/or block them?

    I haven’t found one yet but I am rather new to this.

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it’ll be harder than that, even.

      Meta doesn’t need to spin up an instance to abuse user data on the fediverse, they just need an app that can read it. A hypothetical meta fediverse app could allow users to select their own instance and still read and collect data on the connected instances. As far as I know, there is no way in the protocol to prevent this.

      • A2PKXG@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Our exchange here is public, a gift to humanity and all aliens that might stumble upon it. If meta can make money from it, so be it. But anyone else can just as well.

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except they can build proprietary code on top of it and take over open-sourced activitypub adoption

          It’s just another way to kill competition

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

            The people who would use a Meta variant will use it, and people like us will not. This reminds me of the interview with the Mexican restaurant that spawned Taco Bell. The lady who owned it essentially said, “I’m glad he (the founder of Taco Bell) was able to take our teachings and turn it into something. Good for him.” If they build proprietary code, that’s nice. ActivityPub will still be the same open-source code it’s always been, and all of the Fediverse stuff will still exist. It kinda sucks that Meta is trying to make it seem like they’re the good guys, but in the end there isn’t much they can do to the already established stuff beyond make their own.

            Edit: also, if they do try anything, we at least have previous data and most of the people who care about freedom to privacy here that I’m sure we could come up with something. We’re not getting blindsided like with Google and XMPP back in the day.

            • riccardo@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The “extend” part is fundamental before they can actually get to the “extinguish” stage: https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html

              Once Meta joins in, a new set of dynamics are going to develop between old fediverse uses and new meta/fediverse users. If Meta adopts an “EEE” approach such as the ones described in the article, there’s going to be disruption in the user experience from which the fediverse might never fully recover

              Edit: clarification on the last sentence, my main concern is that a growing niche protocol such as ActivityPub might be destined to irrelevancy after Meta is done with the Extend & Extinguish, similarly to what happened to XMPP

      • niartenyaw@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        they may be able to read certain data from another instance but their current platform allows complete surveillance of what you looked at, how long, every click and scroll, etc while also being able to feed that in to manipulating what you see.

        imo it will be basically impossible to have that kind of impact on people from instances not controlled by them, particularly if the other instance defederates so they don’t see meta instance content.

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          See yashima’s comment below: them adopting ActivityPub is just another way of killing it. The link they provided I think should be mandatory reading

  • tinselpar@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    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
      7
      ·
      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.