this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2023
3048 points (98.1% liked)
lemmy.ml meta
1406 readers
1 users here now
Anything about the lemmy.ml instance and its moderation.
For discussion about the Lemmy software project, go to [email protected].
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
It should come as no surprise that the lemmy.ml admin team took about 2 minutes to decide to pre-emptively block threats / Meta. Their transparent and opportunistic scheme to commodify the fediverse and it's users will not be allowed to proceed.
We strongly encourage other instance administrators to do the same, given the grave threat they pose to the fediverse.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What are the odds meta doesn't make a ton of accounts to vote their way? Defederating meta/threads is not something that needs to be voted on when we know exactly what they will do to activitypub given the chance
I completely disagree that its not something worth voting, but I already seem to be in a minority ( or less vocal opinion), so...
I don't understand your position. Why do you want one of the most unethical corporate actors interacting with the fediverse?
It doesn't matter to me what company it is, I think it's more important that we get a bigger community with a plurality of opinions and ideas. I also don't believe it risks anything.
You are deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room at this point.
We already have a plurality of ideas here. Do you think adding 30mil average Americans to the feed is going to be GOOD for plurality?
AFAIK You're thinking "worth" as is "should the people's voices be heard". The other person is thinking "worth" as in "can we trust that the voices being heard are actually the people's voices and not a giant bot farm being used by Meta to skew the results in their favor?"
Fair enough, even if a far-fetched scenario in my opinion. There's a bit over estimated sense of how much the community is worth to Meta.
I kinda sorta agree? Like, I agree it's not likely but the problem is that it's VERY possible and (afaik) we have no good way of detecting if it happens or not.
So at that point it becomes a matter of opinion, whether you think it's a 1% chance Meta would do that, or a 25% chance, and at what point you say the chance is to high to risk it.
You're picking out one phrase in that entire post and creating a new meaning out of it by ignoring the context.
That is...they didn't say it's not worth voting on whatsoever, they insinuated that if put to a vote, Meta will cheat and astroturf.