Kev Quirk (@kev@fosstodon.org)
fosstodon.org
Attached: 1 image Yeah, that's gonna be a hard pass from me thanks, Rachel. Zero interest in having a conversation with #Meta "off the record" or otherwise. Sharing this purely to be as transparent as possible with our members.

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

  • phazed09@kbin.social
    5·
    1 year ago

    This doesn’t surprise me. The idea then might be to allow for people outside of their walled garden to follow (likely for big name accounts, celebrities, athletes, important people) etc, but not really be a true federated instance. In which case, I think defederating is even more pointless. Just let users on an instance follow who they want to follow.

    • off_brand_@beehaw.org
      7·
      1 year ago

      At least here, if you’re not a fan of de/federation practice, it’s minimal work to change servers.

      I’m not excited at the idea of my posts on another service entirely getting shipped off to a meta server for them to reconstruct my network through that activity. It’s the same issue of as their shadow profiles, where meta knows who you and who you know by watching the posts your mom makes on FB.

      Some of this is inevitable, I know, but I’m at least here for adding more barriers to privacy theft.

      • StrayCatFrump@beehaw.org
        2·
        1 year ago

        They are important to capitalism. Not us.

        https://thefreeonline.com/2015/10/20/capitalism-is-unnatural/

        A study by the Common Cause Foundation, due to be published next month, reveals two transformative findings. The first is that a large majority of the 1000 people they surveyed – 74% – identify more strongly with unselfish values than with selfish values. This means that they are more interested in helpfulness, honesty, forgiveness and justice than in money, fame, status and power. The second is that a similar majority – 78% – believes others to be more selfish than they really are. In other words, we have made a terrible mistake about other people’s minds.

        The revelation that humanity’s dominant characteristic is, er, humanity will come as no surprise to those who have followed recent developments in behavioural and social sciences. People, these findings suggest, are basically and inherently nice.

        …

        So why do we retain such a dim view of human nature? Partly, perhaps, for historical reasons…

        Another problem is that – almost by definition – many of those who dominate public life have a peculiar fixation on fame, money and power. Their extreme self-centredness places them in a small minority, but, because we see them everywhere, we assume that they are representative of humanity.

        The media worships wealth and power, and sometimes launches furious attacks on people who behave altruistically. In the Daily Mail last month, Richard Littlejohn described Yvette Cooper’s decision to open her home to refugees as proof that “noisy emoting has replaced quiet intelligence” (quiet intelligence being one of his defining qualities). “It’s all about political opportunism and humanitarian posturing,” he theorised, before boasting that he doesn’t “give a damn” about the suffering of people fleeing Syria. I note with interest the platform given to people who speak and write as if they are psychopaths.

        …

        Misanthropy grants a free pass to the grasping, power-mad minority who tend to dominate our political systems. If only we knew how unusual they are, we might be more inclined to shun them and seek better leaders. It contributes to the real danger we confront: not a general selfishness, but a general passivity. Billions of decent people tut and shake their heads as the world burns, immobilised by the conviction that no one else cares.

      • Bloonface@kbin.social
        1·
        1 year ago

        Most people who use social media disagree, and unfortunately for you, it’s their opinions that matter most as to whether they use a given social media platform.

        I don’t really care to follow celebrities and athletes either, but I recognise at least that I am in a minority.

        • Takatakatakatakatak@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          2·
          1 year ago

          Oh I’m very much aware that the majority are not people that I want to interact with. That’s why I find this whole situation so ridiculous. This community could stay it’s current size and activity level and I’d be overjoyed with it.

          Once you invite the majority to any platform, it’s ruined. The choice is quite clear to me. Meta have shown quite clearly who they are and what they are interested in. Any idiot left on their platforms at this point is not someone I care to interact with. I’m not sure why there’s any interest at all in what they have to say.