5 ms·
Excellent. There may be other solutions too, but I haven't heard or thought of any. There are two reasons why this is a good thing, I think: The fediverse is a
by SamWhited 3y ago
Excellent. There may be other solutions too, but I haven't heard or thought of any. There are two reasons why this is a good thing, I think:
The fediverse is about creating a more decentralized internet. Facebook is about centralizing as much of the internet on its servers and sucking up as much data as possible. These things simply aren't compatible. We've seen over, and over again what happens when you allow big tech companies into your open standards. Whether it was Google destroying the XMPP network, or Microsoft deliberately trying to cripple Open Office, we know how this will end. Facebook may play nice for a day or two, but one day some product manager will decide they have most of the users, so why play nice? They'll introduce a new (proprietary) feature to try and get their users to complain to their friends that messages aren't as cool when they're not on Facebook, suck up most of the users, then defederate. Or they'll just refuse to follow the standard properly because they know best (ala Google refusing to implement TLS for server to server connections with XMPP, making many smaller servers choose to defederate for their users safety).
Also, we've seen how bad their behavior can be in terms of moderation, being party to genocide, allowing nazis, etc. so why would we allow them to bring all that too our users? Blocking entire servers until they change their behavior, or permanently if they refuse to, has been an extremely effective moderation solution that has kept the fediverse safe. This only works if server sizes stay relatively small (where the crossover point is, I don't know, but I know facebook is way beyond it).