Discussion: Support the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact
For some time, there have been rumors that Meta (Facebook) has plans to impose itself on the Fediverse. These rumors have recently been confirmed, with the news that Meta is developing a clone of Mastodon, referred to as "Project 92", "Barcelona", or "Threads", and that it has had a meeting with the administrators of several large Mastodon instances, possibly including Eugen Rochko, while silencing them with a non-disclosure agreement.
Meta is an oligopoly that has aggressively sought to control social media, through absorption of other social media companies, and through policies of "embrace, extend, and extinguish", as with the RSS and XMPP protocols. Meta, through Facebook, is infamous for condoning the spread of far right ideology and of dangerous misinformation.
There have been calls for pre-emptively blocking Meta's project. In particular, @[email protected], administrator of a small Mastodon instance, beach.city, has proposed the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact.
I see our best hope in collective resistance.
Therefore, I would like us to discuss whether we should support this move, and if so, how best to do so. As a starting point for discussion, I suggest the following:
Social.Coop commits to blocking any Fediverse instances that Meta creates.
We, as a body, sign the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact.
We follow up by collectively drafting and issuing a public statement.
(As I have not been active in Social.Coop discussions, I hope that the way I am presenting this is appropriate, and I welcome constructive criticism.)
![SM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNEJVRUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--a0c0e982b389149714c01ae0d69b9e53131f2357/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/me%202022.jpeg)
Scott McGerik
Tue 20 Jun 2023 12:53AM
This seems to be an anti-Meta proposal. I'm with @richjensen in asking if there are "underlying principles that might set criteria for taking such action against other actors?"
I'm looking for general priniciples beyond "I don't like this entity for this and that reason". That said, I don't like Meta for nearly every reason stated in this conversation.
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmJnRHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--73dd84d5743960bd764099ee41a3d7100653f991/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/EduardoMercovich2020-redondo-color.png)
Eduardo Mercovich Wed 21 Jun 2023 7:27PM
@Scott McGerik
I like it, and we can keep forward on that path on a very positive way.
We will federate with anyone who:
supports diversity and respectful dialog,
doesn't allow any type of discrimination based on any personal characteristics (origin, sexual preferences, skin tone, etc.).
guards and takes care about the personal and private information of the people in it's instance.
-
etc.
All these values are written and should be signed by the person/s responsible for the instance/s (somehow identified, at least as an account responsible in the instance). Those signatures creates a "white list" of instances that federate that can be automatically added to all those who already signed it before.
(sorry the lousy writing, English is not my native language and I'm extremely tired, but didn't wanted to leave this for the last moment).
![NC](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/612bcefcd89da192e3168c906a6bed95.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Nithin Coca @ncoca
Tue 20 Jun 2023 1:22AM
I'm not entirely on board yet. This could be a bridge to bring more Meta users onto the metaverse, if there was a simple way to transfer to another host. I haven't had a FB account in 10+ years, so definitely not a Meta fan,.
Brian Vaughan Tue 20 Jun 2023 1:56AM
@Nithin Coca ncoca As I recall from switching instances to social.coop, the transfer required configuration on both ends. Meta could simply refuse to support that, or support it initially and later stop supporting it. Part of my concern is my memory of how Facebook, and Google, treated XMPP, in the classic example of "embrace, extend, extinguish". Both, initially, used XMPP as the basis for their chat clients, and supported federation with other XMPP servers. (Some computer games did this as well.) This meant that you could use your preferred client on your preferred server, and still communicate with Facebook and Google members. Later, Facebook and Google added unique features to their proprietary chat services, making federation more complicated and less reliable. Later, they fully de-federated. This was a major blow to XMPP, which had been rapidly growing in usage.
![RJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fdcdaa0e0b449a09b925d9e85be68811.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Rich Jensen Tue 20 Jun 2023 10:20PM
@Brian Vaughan This is a valuable historical example of the hazard. Thanks for articulating it. You are helping to persuade me toward taking FAANG / MAANA's persistent strategic attacks on the digital commons into account. I would probably support formation of a 'defederate-first' negotiating coalition with a specific set of demands FAANG-like entities would have to meet.
On another tangent, given the history of demonstrable damage. I wonder if there is any reparations provision that might be offered as a demand?
![MN](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNisvRVE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--43b6f4fee9884fc4fcf5268c24dbe1f565d51792/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBPZ2h3Ym1jNkZISmxjMmw2WlY5MGIxOXNhVzFwZEZzSGFRR0FhUUdBT2dwellYWmxjbnNIT2d4eGRXRnNhWFI1YVZVNkNuTjBjbWx3VkE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoidmFyaWF0aW9uIn19--27fed336878c6ac9959aa30801666fb68e51757f/goats.jpeg)
Matt Noyes
Tue 20 Jun 2023 1:26AM
My fear is that through repressive tolerance Meta and others will leave us alone as they colonize the fediverse, enclosing open spaces just as they have done throughout the existence of GAFAM.
![H](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNmw0RUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--e5cd986fa70e9c1530f3ed42f56e43e479c2b8d1/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/WlxUKzSZ_400x400.jpg)
Harris
Tue 20 Jun 2023 2:08AM
I’m open to discussion on this subject but I’m not at this point convinced Meta joining the Fediverse would be definitively bad and if it meant more of my friends joining the Fediverse, I’d struggle to be happy blocking them all.
![SJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc1214d5e009b136822daa982ee675cf.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Scott Jenson
Tue 20 Jun 2023 3:16AM
The Fediverse is meant to be open. We need to live these values. If Meta behaves inappropriately, then certainly ban them, but let's wait and see. Let's be the positive roles modes, even with instances we don't agree with.
![JK](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/931714ba7cbaebf285d294a5a24827b9.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Jonas Kanafani
Tue 20 Jun 2023 3:41AM
I don't think blocking proactively will help.
Meta can get our data if they want anyway. This is an open social network.
If meta brings 1B+ users to fedi, there will be people we'll want to interact with. As long as meta behaves positively by respecting the standards of activitypub, allowing true positive interaction, we should allow it. If they start deviating from the standard in an EEE move, then we can de federate them. This could be a policy that applies generally, not just for meta.
Eamon Caddigan
Tue 20 Jun 2023 3:57AM
With all due respect to the folks saying similar things (in the comments here and on Fedi), "let's wait to see what harm they do" seems like a stance that will only serve to allow harm to be inflicted that would otherwise be avoided by acting proactively.
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBdzRqQ2c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--88a36505e15e229054843e2bb073eb0f0cea9e44/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/avatar.jpg%3F1517959830)
Erik Moeller
Tue 20 Jun 2023 3:57AM
Wait and see.
![MP](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBODM3Q1E9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--833d0200714239066630999c6f2ea8a7cc10445c/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/20171101_152738.jpg%3F1623703372)
Michael Potter
Tue 20 Jun 2023 5:04AM
This seems a variation of the general defederation question.
Deleted account
Tue 20 Jun 2023 6:00AM
We should set conditions in the manner of https://joinmastodon.org/covenant , specifically imo user portability. A blanket ban based on one leaked screenshot is not a proportional response.
As a reminder this same company maintains react.js.
![L](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNms2RUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--3c54c31c4b9a74d44334a216dd458dc923b4c376/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/IMG-20210519-WA0008.jpeg)
Luke
Tue 20 Jun 2023 7:17AM
I agree any response should be a cross-instance federated response, and I also think this should be for discussion not for a decision immediately.
![T](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMkZlRUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--c141efbcb49e00a4f15e02f8bcc3a674a6fd5e11/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/242F6EA6-8C39-4BE8-A625-CFDD9D1FC280.jpeg)
tanoujin
Tue 20 Jun 2023 7:26AM
You know the arguments.
![DT](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBeTQxRUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--bb03e0590e8abaecf6b18d8e6d052f294ae0ebc3/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/PRTJUN17_14_D81_7514-2_250x250.jpg)
Daniel Thomas
Tue 20 Jun 2023 8:06AM
I don't think preemptively blocking is the right strategy as we don't know what it will actually look like. It may well be that their policies and behaviour give us cause to block them in time (far right nonsense etc.). I think we should still give them a chance as it does provide a route to bringing many more people into the fediverse. I expect we would end up blocking them within weeks following our normal policies but should let that evidence and process run as normal.
![BTM](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e87c7ee8b650874cf2ada2dbc6b91d34.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Bjorn Toft Madsen
Tue 20 Jun 2023 9:00AM
I think it is madness to support this now.
I too have concerns about Meta's possible entry into the fediverse.
But I can also see huge opportunities. This could the moment that the fediverse breaks through.
We don't know what Meta will actually do - all we have seen is a few leaked slides.
Let us wait and make decisions based on knowledge, not speculation. Let the situation mature. We can always decide to defederate if that's required.
![AS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBOWxsQ3c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--6d865b030883b48e2a5106a8574f04063ce5a5f6/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/Pasfoto.jpg%3F1587993329)
Arnold Schrijver
Tue 20 Jun 2023 10:35AM
Preemptive block, and change mind later == informed opt-in
Laissez faire, and block later == opt-out
People point to the possible opportunities that a Meta entry offers, and waiting with action. That constitutes an opt-out. I vote for blocking outright. If there happen to be opportunities, then a re-vote might see Social Co-op opening to them and that'd constitute opting in, on an informed basis.
![RJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fdcdaa0e0b449a09b925d9e85be68811.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Rich Jensen Tue 20 Jun 2023 10:40PM
@Arnold Schrijver I've moved to this position more or less and will change my vote.
![BTM](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e87c7ee8b650874cf2ada2dbc6b91d34.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Bjorn Toft Madsen Wed 21 Jun 2023 8:41PM
@Arnold Schrijver I can see the reason for preemptively blocking if blocking later could be “too late”.
But what is lost with a “wait and see” approach? What opportunity to combat predatory data tactics, and all the other things Meta is known for, so we lose by waiting - or at least waiting until we know their intentions.
![MS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNGF1RVE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--0ce519cee3a812334981c26eaf9523248fbb3979/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/purple_sun.jpg)
Matt S - @matts Sun 23 Jul 2023 9:26PM
@Bjorn Toft Madsen Hi Bjorn, you ask what is lost by a "wait and see" approach? I have been reading through the comments and from where I stand I see the existential risk of an "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy employed by big tech to kill open protocols a reason to not "wait and see". See this loomio comment for an example of how the strategy has been used.
I'd say giving Meta any time to use the benefits of a connection to the established fediverse to advertise their server to their facebook, instagram, and whatsapp users who do not have fediverse accounts currently, would hurt our chances (albeit only slightly if we only waited weeks) at keeping Meta from ending the openness of the fediverse. If we waited months or years, that could be enough time for Meta to establish itself,become the center of the fediverse (so to speak), defederate, and make us all decided if we want to join their walled garden.
Given that it was over a month ago since you commented, and a lot has happened that I'm slowly catching up on, can you say if what your position on this topic is currently?
![BTM](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e87c7ee8b650874cf2ada2dbc6b91d34.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Bjorn Toft Madsen Sun 23 Jul 2023 10:18PM
@Matt S - matts I still broadly feel the same - although I could accept limiting our federation with Threads.
That said, Threads hasn’t even started supporting AvtivityPub and I’m doubtful they ever will. I still feel it’s too early to make decisions. I’m not arguing that we wait years either, just that the particular details over how Threads will federate with others will have a large bearing over whether we should defederate. I think waiting till at least Meta’s intentions for federation is clear would be a much wiser action. We are talking about imagined ghosts right now.
![MS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNGF1RVE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--0ce519cee3a812334981c26eaf9523248fbb3979/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/purple_sun.jpg)
Matt S - @matts Sun 23 Jul 2023 10:28PM
@Bjorn Toft Madsen Thanks for sharing!
![TB](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNjdSQ1E9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--033f92ba1e88b6f5ba1bb118e6b7c2a5d0b27f17/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/tbeckett.jpg%3F1503923965)
Thomas Beckett
Tue 20 Jun 2023 2:16PM
Perhaps provisionally block Meta, pending formation of the coalition that Fenn suggests.
![BS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNjl1RUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--f25b0e2ed860920f85ae8710811480d5b60c6f09/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/9b8ef827f54b2c72.jpeg)
Brecht Savelkoul
Tue 20 Jun 2023 2:17PM
If Facebook is going to develop this Fediverse interop feature with the same velocity as they've been working on VR, then we've still got years before they'll deliver anything meaningful. So I'd say there's no need yet to rush to a decision.
![K](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBOXY1RHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--cd67a466f4350b8364a5991458186bf46d8c039f/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/FutM0Adm_400x400.jpg)
Kévin
Tue 20 Jun 2023 8:24PM
From what I understand blocking Meta (and we're assuming they're actually going to federate rather than BlueSky their infrastructure) won't actually stop them hoovering up data which seems to be the major (and justifiable as they can't be trusted after Shadow Profiles, Myanmar, and Cambridge Analytica) concern. Although I'm happy to be proven wrong as I might not fully understand AP.
However, I think we need a more formalised and solid policy for not just Meta but any similar player.
Dynamic
Tue 20 Jun 2023 9:48PM
I enthusiastically support this proposal. I see that a fair number of people are concerned, and I therefore support discussion, but for me it is a very easy decision to support this.
![DZ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/56f62586a43f2c54757a631ffe75746f.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Dmitri Z.
Tue 20 Jun 2023 10:36PM
Definitely needs further discussion. Signing petitions on a one-off basis per company is not the way to go . Instead, we should come up with criteria. Like "We vow to de-federate instances that 1) Do not allow account and data export/migration, 2) Support the Right to be Forgotten / deletion, 3) Respect #norobots and similar permissions mechanisms, 4) ..."
![RJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fdcdaa0e0b449a09b925d9e85be68811.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Rich Jensen Tue 20 Jun 2023 10:56PM
@Dmitri Z.The current pact language is Meta specific. I agree it is not ideal but I think Meta's history justifies joining an emergency, pre-emptive response. As others have suggested, I believe social.coop should support the formation of a community of concern while drafting more general policy positions and demands.
![DZ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/56f62586a43f2c54757a631ffe75746f.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Dmitri Z. Tue 20 Jun 2023 11:09PM
@Rich Jensen Understood. Still, from me, a big -1 on a preemptive kneejerk defederating Meta, without a larger discussion. As members of the ActivityPub and Fediverse community, we worked really hard to be taken seriously, and specifically to provide an open protocol that all social media platforms should use. We should have specific criteria for defederating (even if they're specific to Meta), and only do that when they break those criteria (in which case, I'll be very enthusiastically pitching in on banning them and getting everyone to do that).
![RJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fdcdaa0e0b449a09b925d9e85be68811.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Rich Jensen
Tue 20 Jun 2023 10:37PM
I've changed my vote to 'support' for reasons given in the discussion.
Django
Wed 21 Jun 2023 5:09AM
Meta, has a terrible track record with user data, and moderation. And the list goes on. Would support blocking whether or not other instances were involved
![BS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBd2NLQ2c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--7d88e7abc0c004ffe1ab764cc8ef8695f9c58427/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/NightHackingEdit.jpg%3F1474862005)
Billy Smith
Wed 21 Jun 2023 6:40AM
While keeping the possibility of transferring people from FB to the Fediverse would be great, it's the previous behaviour of the "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" that stands out.
But this is just a reaction to their current behaviour.
Pre-emptively acting to stop this sort of behaviour-patterns in future would be a better idea.
Sort of "You can't be part of the Fediverse without fully enacting ALL of the protocols" would reduce the future ranges of potential bad actions.
![RD](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ba1948df42714540c0a0a3ca13e5f0e3.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Robert Dickey
Wed 21 Jun 2023 8:03AM
refuse to have fb or twitter accts. this is only social media i use. initially for it based on walmart analogy. read recent blog by Bloonface and Matt's comment here and had me rethink it. can't decide because I don't understand network protocol. blocking , defederating, expelling make me very uneasy as an outspoken union troublemaker. but mostly don't understand the engineering enough to make an informed vote.
![RH](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMkpSQ2c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--152f49aa514ebd47e24a875cea4d86050c672e82/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/For_LinkedIn.jpg%3F1598870413)
Richard Hull
Wed 21 Jun 2023 9:45AM
Needs more discussion
![NS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBOGU1Q1E9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--e9a5216b0c43bd20be985b04a523f1dac5d94986/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/nathan_schneider.jpg%3F1442278666)
Nathan Schneider
Wed 21 Jun 2023 2:58PM
This is a difficult vote for me. I feel very torn. But I tend to think it would be better to see what Meta's behavior is like in this instance. Would it have been better if Google had not created Gmail? I don't use Gmail, and I wish fewer of my contacts did, so less of my email was getting absorbed by it. But I am also glad that they are on an open standard, so I can keep using a co-op hosted email server, rather than gchat or whatever. So, at present, I think bring em on.
![C](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBeStmRUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--7bc2853a184710b804b06cbc7cf088b01baba541/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/deepfried_1627738653234.jpg)
Calix Thu 22 Jun 2023 12:14PM
@Nathan Schneider "Would it have been better if Google had not created Gmail?" that's a clear "yes" from me.
Google has been on a years-long campaign to enact the "extend extinguish" parts of the choreography (most recent example I'm aware of is "AMP for email") which they couldn't even be considering if they'd been less successful with signing up users on the promise of compatibility. I've been running my own email servers for over a decade, and Gmail is the unparalleled #1 worst offended when it comes to exhausting non-delivery issues, requiring signing up for their non-standard, proprietary tools to have any hope of fixing, and with close to zero of their billions-of-dollars-large budget given to supporting email operators in using.
Gchat is a great example, where it used to be federated, and was turned into a walled garden immediately as soon as they thought they had enough of a captive userbase to do so.
![ES](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d09b0c40cfc33125691b128b3fbe539d.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Ed Summers @edsu
Wed 21 Jun 2023 3:12PM
While I understand the intent, I find it deeply ironic that people are saying there should be more discussion when this is the place where we discuss these things 🙂
I personally do not want to interact with Meta properties in social media, and will actively block it in my own preferences if it comes online.
I'm less sure about what we should do as a cooperative.
![MS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNGF1RVE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--0ce519cee3a812334981c26eaf9523248fbb3979/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/purple_sun.jpg)
Matt S - @matts Sun 23 Jul 2023 9:45PM
@Ed Summers Hi Ed, do you know if a user blocking an entire server as in the docs you link to will prevent that server from accessing your data? Or does it simply block you from seeing any content or users hosted on that server? I don't see that clarified in the docs.
![D](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBK3VxRVE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--4cb969f90e65b6bbe2633c3735f9a87b2c6f71ee/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/makowka%20picrew%20front%20short%20hair.png)
dyani
Wed 21 Jun 2023 4:09PM
The act of blocking and therefor limiting the reach of big companies like this is something I love about the Fediverse. I would love to see social.coop start a separate conversation to spread the impact of this kind of blocking, and see what kind of strategies we can come up with.
![A](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/6e1842c917a9009809429b7be3273a9d.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Akshay
Wed 21 Jun 2023 5:50PM
II agree with almost everyone in support of this propose here, so I will avoid repeating the points.
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmJnRHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--73dd84d5743960bd764099ee41a3d7100653f991/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/EduardoMercovich2020-redondo-color.png)
Eduardo Mercovich
Wed 21 Jun 2023 7:13PM
Facebook (don't let us be fooled by the name change) has a clear story of extremely bad behavior.
But instead of saying "we won't federate ever with Meta" (that someone can use to say that we are aggressive) we can say "We will happily federate with Meta once it can cut out it's own cake of nazis, white supremacists, far right extremists, and homo-trans-fobics" (add all of our preferred groups here).
They will never do that, so the result is the same, we are not the bad actors, Meta is. :)
![CL](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/49ffd9d711bdc29d66183c1f99065742.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Chris Lott Wed 21 Jun 2023 9:14PM
@Eduardo Mercovich So why is current policy to block/not-federate with instances based on such content not enough? As it stands, if an instance is allowing nazis and white supremacists to post freely, social.coop blocks/de-federates anyway, doesn't it?
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmJnRHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--73dd84d5743960bd764099ee41a3d7100653f991/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/EduardoMercovich2020-redondo-color.png)
Eduardo Mercovich Wed 21 Jun 2023 10:09PM
@Chris Lott
Yes, totally so. I believe (not being a pro on this issue) that our general values allows us to not federate with Meta. But in this values there is no mention (that I know of) about privacy and selling personal information. We can add it. :)
Other issue to discuss in parallel is to analize the social/symbolic impact of adhering to the anti Meta FediPact...
![AW](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBejdOQ1E9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--3e0b736c5574a348e9f14ff3b254d97ace8e43d8/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/AaronWolf-smaller.png%3F1454520682)
Aaron Wolf
Wed 21 Jun 2023 8:06PM
I'm happy with anything that successfully sabotages Meta. I'm not confident that I've understood the particular ramifications here. I'd still like to see this thought through carefully.
I do not like the ideological purity emphasis though. Meta/FB would be hugely harmful even if Nazis et al did not exist; right-wing ideas is not the main problem with Meta/FB. The main problem is monopolistic capitalism and advertising business model.
![J](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/67cf115f9ae7d523d9483293b7768ece.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Jay
Wed 21 Jun 2023 8:37PM
I think this is premature and not necessary for user safety.
![DVN](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBd0ZzQ2c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--e895d139d9a4ba05953f321b1495609cfd9e0f05/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/IMG_20170930_161550.jpg%3F1555007279)
Dave V. ND9JR
Wed 21 Jun 2023 9:16PM
This is an easy vote for me & I can't believe there are people here who want a "wait and see" approach when Meta/Facebook has an over 15-year history of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, using data that people did not consent to giving them for their own gain, even to the point of creating "shadow accounts" for people who don't have an account with them, and generally giving humanity outside of its executives and shareholders the middle finger. That to me should be more than enough to block them.
![DH](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3d9538e87b7f35791ac3bdc35f246549.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Drew Harry
Wed 21 Jun 2023 9:37PM
I'm personally inclined to wait-and-see rather than sign now. We don't understand their plans and therefore how best to disrupt them. We may have leverage here that we can exercise cooperatively with other instances, or we may not. Pure defederation may be the best way to inhibit them, or maybe there are other models that are more effective. I think we have a better discussion looking at the actual product and how it integrates.
![N](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBeVV6RUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--486f70dac4c355cfb9a9823b546b7b0fa51c5743/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/nic.jpg)
Nic
Wed 21 Jun 2023 9:55PM
Because of the risk of re-centralizing our fledgling communities and further admin/mod burnout from a billion-user content-hose, I support the idea of a block until Threads' launch, that's reviewed then and periodically after that. I also support adopting broader policies beyond the Mastodon Server Covenant for not federating with actors involved in non-consensual data aggregation, or who are shown to attack the commons and not give back. But not the proposal as it stands (see comment below).
![DH](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3d9538e87b7f35791ac3bdc35f246549.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Drew Harry Wed 21 Jun 2023 10:27PM
This is a nice extension. Although I wrote earlier that I would prefer not blocking until we see, I'm also very comfortable with a pre-emptive block and a commitment to reconsider strategy when we know what they're actually doing.
Clayton ([email protected])
Wed 21 Jun 2023 10:53PM
I'm pretty interested in what Meta joining the Fediverse would look like and oppose a pre-emptive defederation from them. I have a lot of friends and family on Facebook and Instagram who I have unsuccessfully recruited to the Fediverse. I'm begrdyon Instagram as a result.
Being able to connect with those community members in the fediverse would be a huge improvement. Also, many are frustrated with FB and Insta and would switch to Mastodon.
![JNM](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d37cb81a0b3708fdc5aa03165241d700.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
J. Nathan Matias
Thu 22 Jun 2023 12:48AM
I would want to see actual goals and have a conversation on the basis of those goals (see my comment below)
Item removed
![N](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/4e7722d7a7c3336498082eca2d1f4550.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Noah Wed 21 Jun 2023 4:13PM
I have a hard time understanding what people want to "wait and see" about, from a company with a track record like Facebook's? They are a known quantity.
I also don't understand the position that we should look for a broader rule, or a more permanent coalition, before acting on this case. We don't need an ironclad timeless principle of blocking to agree that Meta is not aligned with our values.
![BTM](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e87c7ee8b650874cf2ada2dbc6b91d34.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Bjorn Toft Madsen Wed 21 Jun 2023 8:39PM
I really like what others have expressed in regards to principles; let’s find general policies on the basis with which meta can be federated with or degenerated from, rather than design something that targets Meta directly.
I’d also like to add a general caution around the use of defederation as a way of expressing disdain for behaviour in the past. If Meta does something we consider dangerous in regards to the fediverse, we can act. Why risk the upsides when downsides have yet to materialise. Let’s be practical about our actions, not political. Meta hasn’t done anything yet. Why would we not give them a chance to redeem themselves when there is no evidence of negative behaviour yet?
I have relatives on Instagram. Friends. Being able to connect with them in a way that doesn’t give meta anything meaningful seems a golden opportunity.
Meta will stress the fediverse’s ability to scale. We should wish for this! There are problems running at instagram’s scale that we won’t discover for years lest a large community joins.
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmJnRHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--73dd84d5743960bd764099ee41a3d7100653f991/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/EduardoMercovich2020-redondo-color.png)
Eduardo Mercovich Wed 21 Jun 2023 8:56PM
@Bjorn Toft Madsen
Let’s be practical about our actions, not political. Meta hasn’t done anything yet. Why would we not give them a chance to redeem themselves when there is no evidence of negative behaviour yet?
They did an awful loof horrible things already, for many years. How many times someone must show bad faith and bad behavior until we start to take precautionary measures?
Anyway, the idea that it is coalescing (about positive values that we require to federate) is much better in every way, so in both cases, we cannot start federating with Facebook until they sign that pact (which they will never sign, or they loose the huge business of selling people's information). :)
![N](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBeVV6RUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--486f70dac4c355cfb9a9823b546b7b0fa51c5743/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/nic.jpg)
Nic Wed 21 Jun 2023 9:47PM
I think this proposal needs work. Any first pre-emptive block in the fediverse's history (?) needs to try to limit future whataboutery and potential confusion. The AntiMeta Pact says Meta 'must be fought back against at every possible opportunity" but I think some here see blocking more as part of a 'wait and see' approach, which is different.
For me the question that lacks consensus on here is why pre-emptively block? If it's because of Meta's past behaviour; the fact they're an advertising giant; their demonstrated disregard for GDPR / right-to-be-forgotten; their history of embrace/extinguish such as with XMPP; their approach to disinfo/hate-speech, genocide-incitment-in-languages-their-mods-don't-speak, their 15,000 seemingly underpaid moderators etc – then I'd rather we adopted a generic policy against such actors, as I doubt Meta will be the last.
But, imagine none of these things existed. Would federating be ok? I'm pausing most when I picture a social network of 1 billion daily active users (3 billion across Meta) adding Activity Pub and joining a fediverse of 8 million (?) with ~1.5m daily active users. Even if Meta was faultless - joining would still make me nervous, on two levels:
Technically - the potential firehose of 100-1000x more content and users. Is ActivityPub, social.coop and the wider fediverse up to it? Who covers the costs of the caching servers and human moderation around that increase? We grew ten-fold-ish at the end of last year and it seemed tough for all instance admins. I'd welcome some expert instance sys-admin / or ActivityPub spec-writers input on what Instagram being an instance actually means.
Re-centralisation - If Threads was a success and rolled out across Meta, the Fediverse as it stands today would be a tiny (< 0.1%) fraction of an ecosystem that was mostly just one company. That removes the decentralisation at the heart of this project, that drew many of us here, and that company's decisions on moderation, tech, the way regulators treated them, the allowed behaviours of their users, etc – would dominate everything here.
So I support the idea of a block until Threads' launch, that's reviewed then and periodically after that. (and of course it might launch and never get more than a million actives). I also support adopting broader policies beyond the Mastodon Server Covenant about not federating with actors involved in non-consensual data aggregation, or who are shown to attack the commons and not give back. But not the proposal as it stands.
NB - since drafting this the proposal changed, I think this adds new problems. ie it now says "Meta, through Facebook, is infamous for condoning the spread of far right ideology and of dangerous misinformation" - some people may say the same of Mastodon + ActivityPub, the software + protocol that powers Truth.social and countless other extremist / disinfo platforms. ie there's sufficient arguments without doing a 'you're evil and we're the good guys'. I've seen disinfo and hate speech on our instance - thankfully removed, but who knows what would happen if we'd a million times more users.
Brian Vaughan Wed 21 Jun 2023 10:04PM
@Nic "Meta, through Facebook, is infamous for condoning the spread of far right ideology and of dangerous misinformation" was present when I first posted. I only changed the title, and the text, "Therefore, I would like us to discuss whether we should support this move, and if so, how best to do so. As a starting point for discussion, I suggest the following", and those changes were intended to back off from framing this prematurely as a finished formal proposal.
![N](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBeVV6RUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--486f70dac4c355cfb9a9823b546b7b0fa51c5743/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/nic.jpg)
Nic Wed 21 Jun 2023 10:25PM
@Brian Vaughan ah sorry - I was looking for what had changed and hadn't picked up on that. Thanks. FWIW, living in a country where Facebook helped make Brexit happened thru weaponised disinfo, I don't have a problem with the statement, so much as feel the fediverse isn't as strong in this area as we'd like to think, so it's easier not to build the argument on that.
![C](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBeStmRUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--7bc2853a184710b804b06cbc7cf088b01baba541/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/deepfried_1627738653234.jpg)
Calix Wed 21 Jun 2023 10:53PM
Any first pre-emptive block in the fediverse's history
@Nic wasn't the (successful) isolategab campaign also preëmptive?
![N](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBeVV6RUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--486f70dac4c355cfb9a9823b546b7b0fa51c5743/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/nic.jpg)
Nic Wed 21 Jun 2023 11:42PM
@Calix - thanks, I stand corrected. I thought that had happened afterwards. Have adjusted.
Mark Meyer Wed 21 Jun 2023 10:11PM
Facebook actively encouraged the genocide against the Rohingya people. Zuckerberg is a war criminal and needs to stand trial at the ICC. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-facebooks-systems-promoted-violence-against-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/ No federation with Facebook is the way.
![JNM](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d37cb81a0b3708fdc5aa03165241d700.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
J. Nathan Matias Thu 22 Jun 2023 12:48AM
I agree Meta's actions are concerning. I would also support a collective response to the risks involved. Yet this proposal has no actual goals, and it's not clear to me what this initiative would set out to practically achieve, and whether blocking Meta will accomplish it. I would happily support an effort that starts with practical goals and then develops a collection of interventions that we think will work on the basis of those goals. But without goals, I can't even assess the proposal.
![JNM](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d37cb81a0b3708fdc5aa03165241d700.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
J. Nathan Matias Thu 22 Jun 2023 12:51AM
Here are examples of possible goals:
-
Goal: getting them to be good stewards and neighbors (for example)
Ask and pressure Meta and other companies to contribute resources and effort to the Fediverse in ways they can't claw back (lots of companies contribute to open source in this way)
Ask and pressure Meta and other companies to contribute resources and effort to trust/safety in ways that are not exploitative like their other efforts
Ask and pressure Meta and other companies to bring more people into the fediverse in ways that help it flourish through network effects
-
Goal: keep them out (for example)
Force the company to abandon their efforts
Reduce and limit the percentage of the Fediverse that they constitute
Those are just four examples— and the tactics would be different for each of them
![GC](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/79543d339ad187c91576358ce4c59085.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Gabriel Coleman Thu 22 Jun 2023 12:58PM
One source of hesitation for folks seems to be the desire to form a coalition of servers before signing something like this pact in order to act collectively in blocking Meta and other instances that would be potentially harmful to the longevity of the Fediverse.
To me, the Meta Fedi Pact is a collective action and its signatories are a de-facto coalition (a federation even!). If social.coop signed on we could take initiative in building this loosely affiliated group of servers into a more organised and powerful network. Organising around an action point like this isn't premature, it's the best opportunity we have to build momentum around inter-server governance.
Brian Vaughan Thu 22 Jun 2023 9:49PM
I'm not sure what the next step should be. I think there's sufficient interest in taking a public position of some kind against the threat of Meta's entry into the Fediverse, but it seems like we need some more discussion so that we can formulate a proposal that most of us will be happy with.
Django Fri 23 Jun 2023 4:16AM
I see that quite a few of the Concern votes, are actually in general agreement about the overall nature of Meta and it’s potential impact to the Fediverse…
But would prefer a more generalized abstraction via specific rules that wouldn’t just apply to Meta, or creating a larger inter-instance structure that could deal with other future threats.
I appreciate and am in full agreement with those types of positions… so
Let us not let perfect be the enemy of good!
I think it’s also helpful to quote one of the ActivityPub designers
The point of a federated social protocol is actually NOT to be incredibly interconnected but to be very flexible in forming sub-networks. NOT to have a massive space but to have bespoke community-owned communities that can still be seen/discovered at-large if desired.
Item removed
![SF](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/6a762b6817e4cafdfdf4de534ecb6308.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Scott Feeney Fri 23 Jun 2023 8:24AM
I'd support joining this pact. I think it's an important collective action against domination of the fediverse by one actor or by a small set of actors. The revelation that Eugen Rochko met with Facebook* under NDA is concerning and makes me even more inclined to support the pact. Giving certain people privileged access to information is a classic tactic to divide a community. Mastodon gGmbH's apparent acquiescence to Facebook creates all the more need for other servers to band together in standing up to Facebook.
*Also, I choose to call it Facebook instead of Meta because I think the rebrand is serving to obscure the fact that, actually, this company has a long track record, and we do not have to wait and see whether it will act in good faith or not. We know. The wait and see comments are, to me, evidence of an incredibly successful rebrand in that it seems to be making some of us forget the company's well-deserved bad reputation.
And if anyone thinks this specific app will be designed by an autonomous team within Facebook who are more benevolent than the parent company, consider that Instagram was long considered a rare success story of an acquisition that was allowed to develop autonomously based on its original values, and yet its co-founders quit a few years ago after the meddling from Facebook executives got to be too much for them, too (described at length in the book No Filter by Sarah Frier).
![BMH](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c765934363224852356e0d9a992b3a23.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Benjamin Mako Hill Fri 23 Jun 2023 6:26PM
I missed the vote but I do not support this. I came to free/open source software (FOSS) from the social and economic justice movements. The participation of massive technology companies in the FOSS ecosystem is problematic in many ways and big companies like Meta and their actions must always be approached with skepticism. They do not share our values.
But social movements in the FOSS space have gained quite a lot from being able to build on the resources of big companies in areas of overlap. I think its hard to say that the open source movement has lost more than its gained by the participation of big tech firms—if for no other reason than they have so many resources and have done so much that even small areas of overlap can lead to net benefits.
We should be careful not to let Meta set the terms of their participation. We should create institutional arrangements that are resistant to cooptation. But banning/blocking them before they even start seems to be reactionary and quite possibly counterproductive.
![DS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmkvQ1E9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--24d20eded3592a486eb65a3926474fb8a85604ad/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/strypey-firestaff.jpeg%3F1583373801)
Danyl Strype Fri 23 Jun 2023 11:24PM
This is exactly what I was going to say, but @Benjamin Mako Hill has put it much better than I could have. To add to this points, I want to encourage every supporting pre-emptive blocks to look at that from the POV of our relationships with people using fediverse servers owned by DataFarms, rather than our antipathy to their owners.
Our whole complaint about Meta et al has been that people are trapped in their DataFarms. Unable to connect with people on other services, and therefore unable to leave the server without losing all their connections there. If the rest of the fediverse blocks those servers, then it's us keeping those people trapped there. That seems like a terrible failure of solidarity.
![BS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBd2NLQ2c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--7d88e7abc0c004ffe1ab764cc8ef8695f9c58427/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/NightHackingEdit.jpg%3F1474862005)
Billy Smith Sat 22 Jul 2023 9:31AM
@Benjamin Mako Hill
If FB is asking developers/maintainers/admins to sign an NDA before talking with them, could we create a Full Disclosure Agreement that their representatives have to sign before they talk with us?
Cory Doctorow uses this approach. :D
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmJnRHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--73dd84d5743960bd764099ee41a3d7100653f991/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/EduardoMercovich2020-redondo-color.png)
Eduardo Mercovich Fri 23 Jun 2023 6:26PM
Dear all.
There are some points that are coalescing from this discussion and a tad more in https://social.coop/@dynamic/110579677650355358
Do we have a pad to draw a rough sketch among us that we can open for more open participation later? Anything like an etherpad may do, that is -by default- open to social coop members, and then can be expanded (in the same or other platform) for others to enrich...
Thanks a lot. :)
Johannes Ernst Fri 23 Jun 2023 7:05PM
Late to the discussion. Observations:
This is a both-a-crisis-and-an-opportunity situation. Reasonable people can make reasonable arguments on both sides.
Our tools are extremely rudimentary. The situation is complex, but we have only one bit of choice: block or not block.
The impact of what we do here either way is minimal (<<1% of Fediverse user population). Unless we do it in conjunction with others, only we feel the impact, the rest of the Fediverse and Meta are largely unaffected.
Even if we did it in conjunction with others, the impact may be too minor to matter. According to https://fedidb.org/current-events/anti-meta-fedi-pact, the pledge so far only affects <400k users.
-
The tool we have is not even remotely up to the task. It is imperative to build up more tools. What those are we will have to learn, but I think:
A set of values that a big part of the fediverse believes are important.
A democractic process by which those values can be updated as needed. (Perhaps an instance with coop experience could have an outside impact on how to do this properly :-))
A public pledge (with branding program) that allows server operators (and perhaps also users, and app developers) to publicly declare their adherence to these values.
Pre-defined policies on how to interact with parties that do not conform to those values. This should involve graduated sanctions, not just black/white block/not.
Some more software features from apps like Mastodon that allow more granular sanctions, like "not blocked but none of the posts from your server get shown in the federated timeline, or only shown behind warnings etc."
Oh, and we definitely need a democratically governed test suite for interop, with a similar public branding regime, to make "accidental" incompatibilities just a tad more expensive in the court of public opinion.
On the actual question: I'm fine either way, as I don't think it matters for this instance. IMHO we should focus our energies elsewhere.
![M](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNWlsQ2c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--7e003dddbe60c73cb81d3fa97353b98ee250ceb4/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/00512317-36DB-4DCE-A7DC-54E928D545D7.png%3F1535621916)
Miloš Fri 23 Jun 2023 7:39PM
I've summarized my thoughts on how this will go in this thread, which I won't repeat here in detail. I appreciate people's engagement. It seems to me there are two things at stake, and both are about profit:
1) Facebook is an entity promoting right-wing content
This is undeniable, and will happen on their fedi instance too. Their owners have a material interest in promoting this type of content, because the left threatens their profit margins.
2) Facebook is a $500B+ corporation looking to expand
Embrace, extend, extinguish is real, and something that Facebook has already done several times. They will absolutely do this with the Fediverse. Rumors exist that they plan to pay admins of large instances to federate with them.
A FediblockMeta is a minority of accounts but it's likely the most active accounts. So yes, I do think it's worth it, for the infrastructure alone.
It seems to me we can take the lead here by:
1) Helping create an Assembly across the #Fedipact, with representatives of instances.
2) Help smaller instances convert their infrastructure to a financially sustainable model (coops)
3) Create a set of standards for defederation, prior to #P92
4) Create a way for those standards to be shared
Agreed that we have momentum now. We can use it to react to Meta's takeover, or we can use it to proactively build something better.
Brian Vaughan Fri 23 Jun 2023 9:14PM
I very much agree with what @Miloš has just written, and in fact I'd pulled up Loomio just now intending to post a link to that same thread they've just posted, along with what I thought was a good summary of the case against Meta/Facebook, https://privacy.thenexus.today/should-the-fediverse-welcome-surveillance-capitalism/
Perhaps we could brainstorm about how we could organize such an Assembly, and who we would invite specifically to start with. Such invitations would be a starting point, of course, because we'd want this to be open and public.
![SF](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/6a762b6817e4cafdfdf4de534ecb6308.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Scott Feeney Sat 24 Jun 2023 1:11AM
Responding to two themes I'm seeing here:
"the pact has minimal impact because it's a small % of fediverse users": There's no reason to believe the pact has reached full saturation. After all, we are still discussing whether to sign on or not. So why assume others are not also evaluating it right now, and may sign on soon? Our decision to sign on would encourage others to. (And as another member pointed out, those users disproportionately represent highly active users who would be open to organizing collectively with us in other ways.)
"instead of blocking, we should organize some kind of more nuanced/sophisticated/generalized collective response": In theory, great, but will that happen? On a timeline where it's still relevant? There is a risk of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. This pact is a form of actually existing collective organizing for an open fediverse.
![M](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNWlsQ2c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--7e003dddbe60c73cb81d3fa97353b98ee250ceb4/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/00512317-36DB-4DCE-A7DC-54E928D545D7.png%3F1535621916)
Miloš Sun 25 Jun 2023 3:57AM
To respond to the two themes:
1 - is signing onto the pact now good? i think, yes - but only if it is used as a temporary measure to organize something more. we can also always reverse the decision, the damage seems minimal to me.
2 - is social.coop a good place to start in organizing a fediverse assembly, jumping off from the fedipact? our democratic process and our know-how in the solidarity economy would be immensely useful to other instances. this assembly could then collectively wield much greater power, and come to decisions democratically as well.
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmJnRHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--73dd84d5743960bd764099ee41a3d7100653f991/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/EduardoMercovich2020-redondo-color.png)
Eduardo Mercovich Sun 25 Jun 2023 5:09PM
I know it is highly rough (being very kind), but please think of this draft as only a starting point to ignite a concrete text and port to other document editing platform/service so we can collectively edit in a short term.
Please also forgive my limits with this language and my very limited knowledge of any technical aspect (which I suggest not to include on purpose, since tech changes fast and we are trying to have something more stable along time)...
This spark-like proposal is:
Positive fediverse (PosiFedi) agreement/ treaty/ covenant/ pact/ accord/ charter/ deal/ entente/ league/ clan/ confederation/ whateverisgoodandfunny.
We value diversity, respect, mutual care, equivalence and justice, and understand that they make us and our society more humane, resilient and regenerative, and our lives more enjoyable.
These values are human but extends to other, non human forms of life that have and deserve the same right to live and are as necessary as humans to keep our biosphere able to sustain life on our shared planet, an emergent property that is right now in great peril.
Based on these values and beliefs is that those who sign this agreement agree, in more concrete Fediverse terms, to:
- never tolerate discrimination of any kind, aggression in any form, misinformation generation and/or spread, denial of historical and present events and threats; we will instead foster civil, informed and respectful dialog and open participation.
- never share private information about other people (without their explicit, conscious and consensual consent?); we will instead take all the reasonable measures and actions to the utmost of our forces to assure the privacy and safety of the people on our instances.
- do our best to moderate in our instances all these and other forms of negative behaviors, to the maximum extent of our forces.
- share information about those instances or people who doesn't share these values and/or break these rules.
We will freely federate with those who agree and comply with these terms. In case of need, will support each other by sharing information and actions.
We will not federate with those who don't agree with these values. Also, failure to comply with the desired behaviors will trigger escalating measures, starting from throttling until total defederation, and their information and acts will be stored and shared among us.
WDYT?
Brian Vaughan Sun 25 Jun 2023 9:08PM
@Eduardo Mercovich I think this is a good start. I notice a repeated use of an expression, "our forces", where I'd have expected, "our abilities".
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmJnRHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--73dd84d5743960bd764099ee41a3d7100653f991/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/EduardoMercovich2020-redondo-color.png)
Eduardo Mercovich Mon 26 Jun 2023 3:05AM
@Brian Vaughan
Thanks a lot.😃🙏
Please, do edit whatever is needed, this was only a pebble to start kicking... 💪😅
Dynamic Tue 27 Jun 2023 11:13AM
@Eduardo Mercovich
I'd be generally on board with these statements as a description of our own instance's values, but I think this is too narrow and specific for defining who we would and wouldn't federate with.
1) I want us to have room to maneuver if there are other instances that either haven't thought things through carefully or adopt a more libertarian stance but are small instances that don't host bad actors at this time.
2) What do we mean by "not federate"?
a. I'm very comfortable barring our members from following friends on Facebook/Meta/Threads. I'm not comfortable barring members from following friends on mastodon.social until and unless mastodon.social becomes a pawn of a Facebook-like entity.
b. I would like to be welcoming of members who want to reach across the political spectrum to try to bring "the other side" around. This is something that https://social.coop/@[email protected] has written about explicitly (she has in fact been resistant to leaving Facebook behind because her goal as a communicator is to get U.S. Republicans to understand the importance of climate change as an issue). I think our instance should be a place where people like her can do their work, as long as they confine their work to the Fediverse and as long as things are configured in a way that keep their followers from harassing others.
3) Does talk of punching Nazis count as "aggression of any kind." I'm not really on board with punching Nazis myself, but I'd like to be able to have conversations with people who do.
Brian Vaughan Sun 25 Jun 2023 9:06PM
One concern I have about the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact is that it is explicitly to be signed by admins or mods. There's the practical question of, if we do decide to sign it, as it stands, who signs for us? But it also reflects a deeper problem with the Fediverse as it exists: there's so little expectation of democracy that it's simply assumed that only admins and mods make decisions for instances. I'd like it if we could negotiate signing it in a way that challenges that expectation -- like we ask that the signature have appended text to say they are signing on behalf of the membership of Social.Coop.
Item removed
![AS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBLzVIRUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--6e44f9112ab283fcfc1b79819c762ce779a7ae53/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/elephant-yin-yang-460x466.png)
Andrew Shead Mon 26 Jun 2023 12:56AM
The scicomm.xyz response to the impending Big Tech invasion of the
Fediverse is well-reasoned and reasonable, it is a response that I can
wholeheartedly support, and it is one that social.coop should consider
adopting.
Brian Vaughan Mon 26 Jun 2023 1:08AM
@Andrew Shead https://about.scicomm.xyz/doku.php?id=blog:2023:0625_meta_on_the_fediverse_to_block_or_not_to_block
(I had deleted my prior comment, because I'd already posted twice in a row.)
![AS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBLzVIRUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--6e44f9112ab283fcfc1b79819c762ce779a7ae53/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/elephant-yin-yang-460x466.png)
Andrew Shead Mon 26 Jun 2023 1:34AM
@Brian Vaughan Thanks for letting me know. I wondered why I couldn't find it, so replied to the Loomio email instead.
![MP](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBODM3Q1E9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--833d0200714239066630999c6f2ea8a7cc10445c/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/20171101_152738.jpg%3F1623703372)
Michael Potter Mon 26 Jun 2023 5:54AM
@Andrew Shead The part where Scicomm mentioned divide & conquer resonated with me. Information warfare is Meta's primary weapon, they use people's biases to influence their thinking. I have to wonder if this pact actually helps Meta because it tips our hand early, before federation choices are made, and has already created some division between us.
![AS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBLzVIRUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--6e44f9112ab283fcfc1b79819c762ce779a7ae53/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/elephant-yin-yang-460x466.png)
Andrew Shead Mon 26 Jun 2023 1:58PM
Yes, we're seeing the thin end of the D&C wedge, and you make a good
point. But, as the old adage goes: forewarned is forearmed. In light of
the Scicomm response, my feeling is that we don't need to be
signatories to a pact. We as an instance could acknowledge and adopt
the Scicomm response, put it on the wiki where we can all see it, adapt
it as needed, and act accordingly to meet circumstances as they arise.
By doing so, our instance will be proactive and ready for what happens
when it happens. We could also view the threat as a stress-test of the
Fediverse; we need to see if decentralization is as resilient as we
think it is; with something like the Scicomm covenant in place, we
should be able to manage any troubles.
![M](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNWlsQ2c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--7e003dddbe60c73cb81d3fa97353b98ee250ceb4/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/00512317-36DB-4DCE-A7DC-54E928D545D7.png%3F1535621916)
Miloš Mon 26 Jun 2023 3:47PM
@Andrew Shead That was a great read. Thank you.
How would people feel about using the fedipact as a starting point to create an infrastructure across instances? An Assembly of Instances, if you will, which could as its first act, adopt a set of common principles like what Eduardo posted. This assembly could also help instances become member-owner cooperatives, like social.coop.
I am open to criticism, so please pile on. :)
Johannes Ernst Mon 26 Jun 2023 6:12PM
A "sub-federation" with a common value system would be amazing. I'm all for it. Only suggestion: make the initial requirements very low and very uncontroversial. Once it has enough mass, and the (presumably democratic, in some fashion, but lots of possible pitfalls ...) governance is reasonably stable, the requirements can be tightened. It would be considerably harder the other way around.
Brian Vaughan Mon 26 Jun 2023 10:38PM
Here's a statement from kolektiva.social on opposing Meta/Facebook. https://kolektiva.social/@moderation/110612539820163987
![AW](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBejdOQ1E9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--3e0b736c5574a348e9f14ff3b254d97ace8e43d8/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/AaronWolf-smaller.png%3F1454520682)
Aaron Wolf Wed 28 Jun 2023 12:10AM
As a random side-comment: I would support any type of connection to Meta for specifically communication that assists Meta users to understand the problems with Meta and how to leave.
So, imagine some fantasy (not technically easy) in which all replies to anyone from Meta have content-warnings and extra caveats urging people to leave Meta instances…
![SJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc1214d5e009b136822daa982ee675cf.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Scott Jenson Wed 28 Jun 2023 1:51AM
One last comment, we can ALWAYS defederate. That option can be used at any point. The reasonable question is why do we want to defederate preemptively? I think the answer is, honestly, "to punish them" which if you're honest about it, it an understandable position. They have done HORRIBLE things and to be clear, I'm not at all happy with them or trust them (I cancelled my account 5 years ago) HOWEVER, I do think we have more power if we wait. If the entire fediverse takes a wait and see attitude (with a clear hair trigger to defederate them) It provides a type of carrot/stick approach. It's in Facebook's best interest to play along. Will they? Who knows, but if we preemptively defederate, we take that option off the table.
I'm not hopeful Meta is "better now", I'm saying "don't throw away an advantage." We have more power if we wait.
Brian Vaughan Wed 28 Jun 2023 1:56PM
@Scott Jenson I don't see how we would have any leverage later if we don't act now. Relative to us, Meta has unlimited financial resources, and it's got no more reason to respect our autonomy than a tiger has to become vegetarian. We can point to Meta's history, but it's a bit redundant, since controlling and exploiting markets is fundamentally what profit-seeking corporations do. This isn't about punishing Facebook. It's about protecting the one viable social media platform that's not controlled by a profit-seeking corporation. We need to keep what we've built intact, along with our principles. And we'll be stronger and better if we do so in some sort of federation with other Fediverse instances.
![SJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc1214d5e009b136822daa982ee675cf.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Scott Jenson Wed 28 Jun 2023 3:09PM
@Brian Vaughan I understand you point but still don't see how waiting harms us in any way. We can always defederate them. How is defederating them NOW more powerful a statement? To be fair, my point was directed as a stronger action of a large group of FediServers acting in concert. If a large group said "Behave yourself or we'll defederate you" that is a carret/stick scenario. Will Facebook care? Intersting question, I think they might. But even if you're correct and they won't care at all, then you're basically saying our actions make no difference. We have no impact on them. If that's true, then what is good for us? In that case, I'd still argue that waiting is better. There has been discussion that a bridge to Facebook may help others leave Facebook. That seems worth exploring. Keep the door open long enough to benefit us, not them. Like I said, we always have the option to close the door. I just see a few (albeit small) reasons to keep the door open. It costs us nothing. Why not keep the door open and see?
If you are worried that there is actual harm in keeping the door open, I'd like to understand your point better. I just don't see the harm in waiting.
Brian Vaughan Wed 28 Jun 2023 4:32PM
@scottjenson You have to prepare for a disaster before the disaster hits. That's especially true when the disaster is going to directly impact communication. Social.Coop at least has Loomio as a secondary means of communication. What do other Fediverse instances have? I'd bet it varies a lot, and some don't really have a secondary means of communication. We can talk to them now. We may not be able to later when Meta is flooding timelines with technically-not-spam. As for carrot-and-stick: no, Meta isn't going to care what a Mastodon instance with 300 users thinks. They will barely acknowledge what the admin of a Mastodon instance with 100,000 users and a legal claim to the name "Mastodon" thinks, and that opportunity has been squandered already.
Years ago, I was a contract worker at Microsoft; I worked in Silicon Valley, in an operations center, monitoring "non-standard systems", i.e., Linux and BSD and Solaris servers from start-ups that Microsoft bought out. Microsoft was spending hundreds of millions to buy out small start-ups, and then would keep the engineers and the servers idle, because it bought them simply so that Google and its other competitors didn't buy them first. You have to understand that it's almost certainly the case that there are engineers working for Facebook who think the Fediverse is a great idea, and that's the sort of people they'd make the points of contact in the "embrace" phase of embrace-extend-extinguish, but they are not the ones driving the process. There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that we will ever have a healthy partnership with Meta. Meta is out to absorb or destroy us. That's how Silicon Valley operates.
![SJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc1214d5e009b136822daa982ee675cf.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Scott Jenson Wed 28 Jun 2023 6:10PM
@Brian Vaughan We seem actually fairly close in our perspective: I don't trust facebook either and I expect they will likely be bullies. I also agree that what we do makes no difference to them. My point has always been collective action. But social.coop is a well run instance and can lead the way. Unfortunately, you still haven't answered my question: what is the harm in waiting? I don't want us to do a performative action with little impact. I do think there is a small chance that waiting can give us more information (see above). If Meta quickly confirms everything you're worried about, by all means close the door.
Brian Vaughan Wed 28 Jun 2023 6:51PM
@Scott Jenson I'm not sure how I can be clearer, as in general, the most obvious danger will be that we will be overwhelmed and unable to communicate, unless we prepare ahead of time, as I was trying to describe. I can't know exactly how Meta will game this, just that I can be certain it will game this, because doing so is innate to profit-seeking corporations.
![SJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc1214d5e009b136822daa982ee675cf.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Scott Jenson Wed 28 Jun 2023 6:57PM
@Brian Vaughan I agree with you! We should prepare, we should have clear 'triggers'. I'm not against your proposal, I'm against your timing. You're not answering my simple question: What is the harm in waiting (just a little bit)?
Brian Vaughan Wed 28 Jun 2023 7:38PM
@Scott Jenson We are waiting a little bit, to have this discussion and settle on a plan which we generally support. At least implicitly, that had to be measured against the loss of momentum in not signing the Pact immediately. The sooner we act, the more time we have to find allies through the Fediverse and prepare. Already many small and medium sized instances have pledged to oppose Meta, so we have some idea what allies we might have. Meta has already acted, by having a meeting with the admins of several large Fediverse instances and making them sign NDAs to attend. We shouldn't wait until they act again, and we can't know how long we have before that happens. It could be hours, it could be years.
Django Wed 28 Jun 2023 3:36PM
@Scott Jenson The preemptive blocking assumption is wrong, or at least wrong for you to assume that is everyone’s position.
I do think we have more power if we wait
Power is the heart of the matter, and it’s important to look at past Corporate Embrace of Community Standards driven Technology.
For example XMPP. Google Embraced the standard in an effort to drive users away from MSN Messenger, and because it could compete with community driven products offering better UX, most users went to Google talk, creating a Hub and Spoke situation where the majority of users are on the Hub/Google talk instance.
Threads has already announced Full Account Migration, so with enough devs and designers can easily beat Mastodon, becoming the hub, making all these community run instances the spokes.
Our only power to prevent becoming a spoke to Meta is to never federate.
Another aspect of preemptive blocking, I assume for many folks, especially those who left Facebook, would be weary of handing over their data / social graph.
![SJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc1214d5e009b136822daa982ee675cf.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Scott Jenson Wed 28 Jun 2023 3:48PM
@Django I don't disagree that is a possibility and if that is indeed what happens, I support your conclusion. My point isn't that we shouldn't do this, but that we just wait 5 minutes and learn a bit more before we pull the trigger. If Meta actually does fully want a hub and spoke then defederate away! But let's just confirm that. Again, we there is no risk to just wait (a bit) before doing this.
Django Wed 28 Jun 2023 5:18PM
@Scott Jenson Not sharing user data is fair reason to block them. In fact based on this point alone, I would suggest a new Poll be made with the question inverted: Do you consent to sharing Data with Meta Servers? cc: @Brian Vaughan
![SJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc1214d5e009b136822daa982ee675cf.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Scott Jenson Wed 28 Jun 2023 6:16PM
@Django But the whole point of the fediverse is to share all of our data openly. It's bit like saying Websites shouldn't be open to Google. This doesn't excuse Google but it also shouldn't affect who we are. Is this naive? Possibly, but I do think we arguing over who we want to be and what community values we want to have.
But again, I'm not taking this off the table, I'm not arguing with you that Meta can't be jerks. I'm only saying that we just need to wait a few minutes to get a better understanding. I'm not saying NEVER defederate, I'm saying "let's just gather a bit more info" for the simple fact that it costs us nearly nothing to do so. So why shouldn't we do that? Am I wrong?
Django Wed 28 Jun 2023 6:24PM
@Scott Jenson Not everything is open. The protocol is open, virtually all of the software that federates is open (I guess not Meta/Threads). But not every post is open, there are public posts, Followers only posts, and Mentioned only posts. Folks are also working on end to end encrypted / Private messages as well. But yeah, it’s possible to have things generally open but with caveats, for example not everyone’s profile is indexable by Google.
![SJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc1214d5e009b136822daa982ee675cf.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Scott Jenson Wed 28 Jun 2023 6:47PM
@Django It would help if you answered my question: what is the harm in waiting a little bit?
![BS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBd2NLQ2c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--7d88e7abc0c004ffe1ab764cc8ef8695f9c58427/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/NightHackingEdit.jpg%3F1474862005)
Billy Smith Fri 30 Jun 2023 4:24PM
@Scott Jenson
I usually translate company behaviour as personal actions to get a better perspective.
If someone who is a known bully, liar, fraudster, and, an aggressive parasite, started trying to hang out with you and your friends, would you feel comfortable?
Or would it be better to tell them to "F Off Right Now" when they first arrive?
From the way that FB has behaved in the past, they have to actively positively prove that they have good intentions going forward, and that cannot be guaranteed to continue.
FB employee's have the legal duty to increase FB's profits.
Nothing else.
No matter what FB says they will do, the person you have been talking with can be re-assigned at an instant's notice, and a different person with a different agenda will be assigned to their place.
De-federate, and Dis-trust.
Let them show by their positive actions whether they will be worth federating with.
And the instant that they change their behaviour patterns, is the instant that we de-federate again.
![SJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc1214d5e009b136822daa982ee675cf.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Scott Jenson Fri 30 Jun 2023 5:15PM
@Billy Smith and as I've said over and over in this thread, I agree with your concerns. My point is that waiting, just a bit, gives us MORE power not less. There is performative value in saying "F Off Right Now', but it limits us, especially if staying open a bit allows us to bridge refugees away from FB. I'm NOT saying FB will suddenly be an angel! They likely ARE going to be jerks. But waiting JUST A BIT before we pull the trigger allows us more wiggle room and opportunities.
But this is a heated issue, emotions are high and it just feels like people want the satisfaction of saying "F Off Right Now" which may feel good, but isn't the most powerful thing for us to do.
Django Fri 30 Jun 2023 5:46PM
@Scott Jenson Many folks are repeating this story that (the mere of idea of) federation will somehow convince users AWAY from Meta. How many of the folks coming from Twitter mentioned their dislike, or even confusion at how federation generally or mastodon specifically works? Let's be pragmatic for a minute, Big corporation with army of developers, designers and UX researchers, can easily iterate their way to creating a great app/service that will likely drive adoption in the other direction.
If the core business of Meta is data the ONLY leverage is indeed to prevent sharing with them in the first place!
![SJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc1214d5e009b136822daa982ee675cf.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Scott Jenson Fri 30 Jun 2023 5:51PM
@Django I'm actually quite tired of talking about this and I don't want to appear to be the guy that keeps yammering on. All I'm saying is that you're right! I just don't see the problem with waiting. That's all I'm saying. You're not wrong. I'm just saying that waiting is a more viable political strategy. I am not disagreeing with you. But I'm done. I'm tired of talking about this. I'm out
![DM](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/44103a948985d8f081aeac6fc9cb6f80.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Dave Menninger Wed 28 Jun 2023 7:08PM
@Scott Jenson A harm that occur without preemptive blocking is harassment and targeting of our users. Imagine you are a user that left FB because of an ongoing campaign of harassment and threats by bad actors on the platform. Waiting until you start getting attacked is worse than preventing attacks from happening in the first place. If a platform can't or won't prevent bad actors for whatever reason, there is no reason to wait for them to figure out how to act badly in the fediverse. It's like waiting until the guy with the knife stabs you before you close your front door.
![SJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc1214d5e009b136822daa982ee675cf.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Scott Jenson Wed 28 Jun 2023 7:13PM
@Dave Menninger Completely agree but it is guaranteed that there will be harassment and attacks? Or is that just a hunch? How do we handle targetting today? Do we ban everyone just in case? Of course not, we wait until we see activity and THEN we ban/defederate.
My point is that we just act on solid data, not conjecture. Be prepared, have clear warnings in place, the MOMENT Meta engages in anything we don't like, ban them! I"m not at all against being prepared and having a plan, but waiting A TINY BIT, to make sure we're extracting as much value as possible (e.g. supporting people that want to migrate over) seems worthwhile trying to maintain. I'm not against your concern, I'm against your timing. A short window seems prudent.
![DM](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/44103a948985d8f081aeac6fc9cb6f80.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Dave Menninger Wed 28 Jun 2023 7:18PM
@Scott Jenson it is guaranteed, from my perspective. FB is well known to be unable or unwilling to disable repugnant groups and individuals.
![DM](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/44103a948985d8f081aeac6fc9cb6f80.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Dave Menninger Wed 28 Jun 2023 7:20PM
@Scott Jenson I also want say that I only posted to give you an answer to the question you've been begging everyone else on this thread for. There are harms that can happen. You have agreed with this. Consider taking a break from this thread for some hours.
![SJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc1214d5e009b136822daa982ee675cf.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Scott Jenson Wed 28 Jun 2023 7:34PM
@Dave Menninger "Begging"? I have been nothing be respectful? It's hard to have an honest exchange when people are using emotionally charged arguments and can't even answer basic framing questions like "What is the harm in waiting?" I've pursued this for the simple reason that no one can answer it, or at least refuses to. Which means this forum has no value.
![DM](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/44103a948985d8f081aeac6fc9cb6f80.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Dave Menninger Wed 28 Jun 2023 7:42PM
@Scott Jenson I've answered you (harassment) and so has @Eduardo Mercovich (system resources).
Last person to reply to this thread wins the argument! On your mark, get set, go!!
![SJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc1214d5e009b136822daa982ee675cf.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Scott Jenson Wed 28 Jun 2023 7:55PM
@Dave Menninger That's unfair, I'm NOT trying to win the this conversation. I'm trying to have a conversation but I agree, we are running out of meaningful exchange here. My point was that both of your answers were worst case suppositions, which while possibly true, would benefit from calmer heads and a bit more information. Waiting on defederation would give us that, but neither of you are willing to admit that waiting actually has very little risk.
I love the fediverse because people are more respective, polite, and the whole point is to have reasonable conversations. But clearly this isn't happening here and I'm being painted as 'an extremist' which is very odd to me as I've tried to be very respectful, and I thought we were having a conversation.
![DM](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/44103a948985d8f081aeac6fc9cb6f80.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Dave Menninger Wed 28 Jun 2023 8:05PM
@Scott Jensonmy understanding is that you feel that the probability of harm is low, or that the window of time before such happens is reasonably long.
I feel the opposite. And even in the case of low probability or long time horizon, I don't accept any likelihood of harm.
I don't have to "admit" to any points that you have made that I don't agree with.
![DM](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/44103a948985d8f081aeac6fc9cb6f80.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Dave Menninger Wed 28 Jun 2023 8:26PM
@Scott Jensonthis is a redirection of the question. You asked for specific potential harms, and were provided with some.
Now you'd like us to accept as given that the probability of harm is low, until we have calmer heads and concrete data.
Why don't I ask you to accept that the probability is high, unless you provide the data to prove otherwise?
Do either of us have that hard data that will show what will happen in the future. No, we don't.
My position is protective, because it assumes worst case. I want protection to be a primary value.
In your view, (correct me if I'm wrong) it is ok to accept some minor risk as a tradeoff for some benefits.
I do not have to accept this tradeoff.
In my view, the frame of "cooler heads and data" is actually an abdication of responsibility. It's kicking the can, and it is often presented from a position of privilege.
We can have different opinions. That's fine. I just want you to consider your base assumptions and maybe take a break from having to be right about something on the internet. Maybe take some contemplative time and write a persuasive essay for us.
#lastPostWins
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmJnRHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--73dd84d5743960bd764099ee41a3d7100653f991/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/EduardoMercovich2020-redondo-color.png)
Eduardo Mercovich Wed 28 Jun 2023 9:36PM
@Scott Jenson
> ... can't even answer basic framing questions like "What is the harm in waiting?" I've pursued this for the simple reason that no one can answer it, or at least refuses to.
We -and many other here and in other already cited instances open letters- have responded that very clearly, at least as my understanding goes (and English is not my native language). There is almost sure damage on many levels: resources, social and inter instance relations, easy abuse of many people, personal information harvesting, etc. We have almost 20 years of completely consistent behavior from Fb that shows that this is their modus operandi and that it makes sense from their business model.
If this is not enough proof or enough dangerous for you, that's ok. But please don't say that we didn't responded.
> Which means this forum has no value.
If you feel this is the case, from your POV there is no point in following this conversation. Please stop now then.
Just to clarify, I didn't like that affirmation at all and I feel it as aggressive because we are here putting our time and attention to collectively understand a very clear danger that seems to be arriving to our front door and -again, collectively- define some action/s. But for you, all this time and attention has no value. What's even more, you are saying that this whole forum (an open, democratic, respectful space) has no value. I believe it's very clear why I -at least- can have some negative feelings about what you said.
In the future, please do think it twice before saying something so obviously aggressive like that again.
For my -and others- care I will take a break from answering anything from you. I hope you understand -as I do- that it is for the better of everyone here.
Best...
Item removed
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmJnRHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--73dd84d5743960bd764099ee41a3d7100653f991/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/EduardoMercovich2020-redondo-color.png)
Eduardo Mercovich Wed 28 Jun 2023 5:08PM
Yes, there is, and it is very concrete: small instances will be flooded way deeper than what they can handle. The last Twitter migration will be reduced to nothing compared with millions of Fb accounts running wild to the Fediverse.
What is wrong with asking Fb to sign our values (there was a proposal a few days ago) and then letting them in? It's gentle, it's clear, it's civil and respectful for all parties.
However, if they don't want to sign a minimal set of shared values, we know what to expect (BTW, we already know it now, but let's give them a chance).
![SJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc1214d5e009b136822daa982ee675cf.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Scott Jenson Wed 28 Jun 2023 6:54PM
@Eduardo Mercovich If those shared values could be a general list all instances could sign up for it would be much more powerful (and practical) Meta would sign one document an 100s of servers would say "ok, you're in" (there is no way Meta will sign 100s of agreements)
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmJnRHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--73dd84d5743960bd764099ee41a3d7100653f991/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/EduardoMercovich2020-redondo-color.png)
Eduardo Mercovich Wed 28 Jun 2023 9:09PM
Something like that is what we've been starting to draft in https://www.loomio.com/d/AZcJK6y2/discussion-support-the-anti-meta-fedi-pact/96
If others feel it's ok, let's put in cryptpad, edit it at will and then share it to be signed with other instances. :)
Brian Vaughan Thu 29 Jun 2023 7:34PM
@Eduardo Mercovich It seems to me that it would be a good idea to go ahead and do that, and perhaps create a new thread to discuss drafting the statement, specifically.
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmJnRHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--73dd84d5743960bd764099ee41a3d7100653f991/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/EduardoMercovich2020-redondo-color.png)
Eduardo Mercovich Fri 30 Jun 2023 1:39AM
@Brian Vaughan Thanks a lot. :)
I'm not very good with Loomio or discussions so I ask you please to start that, but at least I've created a cryptpad with the text to work on: https://cryptpad.fr/pad/#/2/pad/edit/5xxQZvxvjfAP2eQTYenLuWOZ/embed/ (cryptpad is new to me, but it seems to work for this and more).
How does it looks?
![ES](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d09b0c40cfc33125691b128b3fbe539d.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Ed Summers @edsu Tue 4 Jul 2023 12:58PM
@Eduardo Mercovich thanks for doing this! I suggested calling it the Cooperative Fediverse Charter, and left a few comments in there about whether we want to only federate with signatories, or if we should openly federate by default.
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmJnRHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--73dd84d5743960bd764099ee41a3d7100653f991/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/EduardoMercovich2020-redondo-color.png)
Eduardo Mercovich Tue 4 Jul 2023 1:37PM
@Ed Summers Thanks a lot for seeing this important issue. Yes, I added your suggestions and now it is better.
So we 1st federate openly, but if something smells like misalignment of values we can ask an instance to sign this charter. Failure to sign and/or comply can lead to defederation.
Thanks a lot... :)
![N](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBeVV6RUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--486f70dac4c355cfb9a9823b546b7b0fa51c5743/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/nic.jpg)
Nic Fri 30 Jun 2023 9:17AM
Thanks for continuing this process @Brian Vaughan and recognising the range of views.
Could it be helpful to separate the essence of the Pact's proposal 'to not federate with Meta for now', from the second, more political decision of signing the Pact as a collective?
The Pact is worded as a confrontation with Meta, who it says "must be fought back against at every possible opportunity". There may be people here who don't feel like they want that fight, but who also don't want to federate with them, just for the simple maths of a 3 billion daily-active-user social network group federating with a 1 million daily-active-user social network group, feeling daunting. I'm trying to think of analogies where a 3000:1 ratio doesn't leave the smaller of the parties completely diminished, if not destroyed. Homeopathy?!
So, could we have two proposals to vote on? 'Sign the pact', and 'don't federate with Meta yet'?
Brian Vaughan Fri 30 Jun 2023 3:46PM
@Nic There's also the statement that @Eduardo Mercovich has drafted for us to collaborate on. And the notion of calling for an Assembly. I'm wondering how group all these things.
![N](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBeVV6RUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--486f70dac4c355cfb9a9823b546b7b0fa51c5743/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/nic.jpg)
Nic Fri 30 Jun 2023 4:30PM
@Brian Vaughan That is a much more constructive framing from Eduardo, tho my guess is it could also trigger a long discussion. Perhaps consensus is easier to find/check on an action (ie de-federate) than a statement?
If there's community consensus for defederating then that's also a clear expression of the need for a statement or policy (which obvs can be drafted in parallel)? But it avoids letting the syntax getting in the way of the logic… (ie people saying I want to do this, but that sentence is problematic to me for this or that reason)
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmJnRHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--73dd84d5743960bd764099ee41a3d7100653f991/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/EduardoMercovich2020-redondo-color.png)
Eduardo Mercovich Fri 30 Jun 2023 5:22PM
Thanks @Brian Vaughan /\
I'd say, let's parallelize. ;-)
Brian Vaughan Fri 30 Jun 2023 11:29PM
Okay, so do we want three new threads, or four?
That would be one formal vote on endorsing the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact, and one formal vote on not federating with Meta. Then a thread for drafting a public statement. Would we want a fourth thread on calling for an Assembly of Instances, or would that be part of the purpose of the public statement, and therefore part of that discussion?
Dynamic Sat 1 Jul 2023 9:00AM
@Brian Vaughan
If we're moving forward with the Asssembly of instances idea, I think it needs to be four threads, but I think that that one and the public statement thread belong on a longer time horizon than the Pact and federate or not federate thread.
Brian Vaughan Sat 1 Jul 2023 11:36PM
As a reminder, here's our wiki on how to make a proposal.
Here's what I'm thinking we should do next, through Loomio:
- A formal vote on the policy with regards to actions to Meta sites on the Fediverse. I think it would make most sense to use a ranked choice vote, with four options: Pre-emptively block any such site that Meta may create; block any Meta site unless it meets certain conditions; block any Meta site if it meets certain conditions; do not commit to any special actions with regards to Meta sites on the Fediverse.
- A formal vote on the proposal to endorse the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact. I think that running this vote would have to be conditional on the outcome to the prior vote; we obviously shouldn't promise to pre-emptively block Meta if we have decided against doing that. Also I think we should communicate that whoever is signing, is signing on behalf of Social.Coop.
- Create a discussion thread for collaboratively drafting the statement @edumerco started. The preceding votes would influence the content of that statement, I think, particularly if we're specifying conditional actions.
- Create a discussion thread for the possibility of calling for an Assembly of Instances, possibly using the Pact or the statement as a starting point.
Brian Vaughan Sun 2 Jul 2023 9:26PM
Also, on #1, I'm not sure what would be the best way to frame it, procedurally, about the positive or negative conditions. I was imagining referring the question of defining the conditions to some sort of committee, based on what people might say in discussion, or maybe referring it to some existing working group. Anyone have any thoughts?
Dynamic Mon 3 Jul 2023 11:21AM
@Brian Vaughan
Unfortunately, I don't have any specific thoughts on process. I hope that some people familiar with past decision-making can chime in here...
![ES](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d09b0c40cfc33125691b128b3fbe539d.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Ed Summers @edsu Tue 4 Jul 2023 1:06PM
I think it's definitely time to put up a proposal for 1 in Loomio and really like the idea of a ranked choice vote, with the choices that were listed. I think staging the decisions will be good for not giving members too much to digest at once? Thanks @Brian Vaughan for continuing to advance this discussion -- do you want to write it up?!
@Matt Noyes @emi do @Mica Fisher @Sam Whited @Flancian as CWG Ops do you think this is the right approach to start with a proposal for 1 listed above? It seems like the issue of defederation is one that CWG has had to discuss before, and that perhaps you have decision making power for already?
Brian Vaughan Tue 4 Jul 2023 3:35PM
@edsummers , thanks for tagging people to discuss process.
It's become urgent. Meta announced today, July 4, that threads.net will launch on July 6. Wikipedia has links to a few articles about the announcement.
Threads (app)
I definitely want to hear advice about process, but I think we should get the formal vote started today. The decision would probably be reached after threads.net has gone live.
![MN](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNisvRVE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--43b6f4fee9884fc4fcf5268c24dbe1f565d51792/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBPZ2h3Ym1jNkZISmxjMmw2WlY5MGIxOXNhVzFwZEZzSGFRR0FhUUdBT2dwellYWmxjbnNIT2d4eGRXRnNhWFI1YVZVNkNuTjBjbWx3VkE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoidmFyaWF0aW9uIn19--27fed336878c6ac9959aa30801666fb68e51757f/goats.jpeg)
Matt Noyes Wed 5 Jul 2023 2:13AM
@Ed Summers The CWG Ops Team has defederated from instances, based on reports from users, or on tips from other admins. But, this seems to me like a good thing to decide collectively. This discussion is a great example of members starting a discussion and self-organizing. We recently approved the proposal to create an organizing circle, which might be helpful for coordinating action once decisions like this are made by the members. https://www.loomio.com/p/OI8kEjVz/social-coop-organizing-circle-proposal
Brian Vaughan Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:32PM
I was preparing a poll, a ranked choice vote, on options for Social.Coop's response to Meta. However, if I'm understanding the bylaws correctly, it is required to include an option to block a proposal, to indicate a belief that a proposal violates our principles, and a block is weighted more heavily than other votes. I don't see a way to include that as an option in a ranked choice vote, so I don't know how to handle this, procedurally.
![ES](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d09b0c40cfc33125691b128b3fbe539d.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Ed Summers @edsu Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:42PM
@Brian Vaughan I've never noticed that the by-laws are so prescriptive about the type of poll. I guess it's best to follow the by-laws as best you can, and keep the poll simple and easier to interpret? When looking over past polls I didn't see any with a block option, but maybe I didn't look at enough of them.
Brian Vaughan Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:51PM
@edsummers Maybe the best option then is to say that if anyone wants to block, they should say "block" as a comment, and we'll calculate the results manually if that happens.
Poll Created Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
Shall we defederate from Meta's threads.net? Closed Tue 11 Jul 2023 7:00AM
Please read closely, and review my reasoning. This has been a contentious issue, and the validity of the vote itself has been a subject of considerable contention. I take full responsibility for any failure to handle the process appropriately.
This was a ranked choice vote on these four options:
Option 1: We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net.
Option 2: We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating.
Option 3: We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net.
Option 4: We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net.
By the original count on Loomio: Option 2 received the most points, 349; followed by Option 1, 327; Option 3, 314; Option 4, 210.
However, we had one Block vote. As I had originally stated, if this occurred, it would require a manual recalculation of the vote. I had originally assumed, based on a misreading of the Bylaws, that a Block vote was essentially a heavily weighted Disagree vote, and I thought that it should be handled by treating any Block vote as effectively nine votes for Option 4, which is essentially the null option. However, on reviewing the Bylaws, it actually states, "Proposals with Block require at least 9 times more Agree votes than Disagree and Block votes in order to pass." So my reasoning is that a multiplier of nine would be applied to the point total for Option 4.
After taking this into account (and modifying one vote, according to a comment that complained of a glitch with registering a vote on a mobile device), the results are:
Option 4, 1890 points
Option 2, 349 points
Option 1, 326 points
Option 3, 315 points.
This mean a selection of Option 4, which effectively means taking no special action with regards to threads.net.
This is a link to a spreadsheet. The first tab is data as exported from Loomio, the second tab is the calculation of the point totals, which matches the results reported by Loomio. The third tab is the modified result as I have described; the one modified vote is highlighted.
https://cryptpad.fr/sheet/#/2/sheet/view/Tw72ShOmExVE88jWJNmJxchbHM3Z4UniCpvs+sNq8eo/
This is the first formal proposal, following from the discussion in Discussion: Support the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact. Depending upon the outcome of this vote, there will probably be further related proposals. There has been a great deal of discussion in that thread, of Meta and the basis for our concern. The discussion showed that there is a general concern with Meta, with its history and its intentions for social media, and a range of views on how to respond to its project, but a consensus that we should respond in some way.
On July 4, it was announced that Meta's project, threads.net, will launch on July 6. This makes it considerably more urgent that we decide our course of action.
- Meta’s ‘Twitter Killer’ App Is Coming
- Threads, Meta’s Twitter clone, starts launch countdown, plus a few details on how it works
Significantly, threads.net will not be launched in the EU at this time, as it likely violates EU data privacy laws.
Here are four possible responses by Social.Coop, to be chosen by ranked choice voting. If you wish to block, as described in the Bylaws, please start your comment with "Block"; in that case, we will need to calculate the results manually.
Results
Results | Option | Rank | % of points | Points | Mean | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | 1 | 29.1% | 349 | 2.9 | ||
|
We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | 2 | 27.3% | 327 | 2.7 | ||
|
We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | 3 | 26.2% | 314 | 2.6 | ||
|
We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. | 4 | 17.5% | 210 | 1.8 | ||
Undecided | 0% | 0 | 0 |
120 of 367 people have participated (32%)
![KP](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/1bd88805ab1eda38a249b1d0cc7e9e03.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Kyle Peacock Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
I simply don't want Facebook to have access to my server's social graph
Evan Boehs Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
I don't trust facebook. I fully expect it to be defederated. I also do believe this could result in many of my friends being in the fediverse. I want that. Threads can be a gateway drug, but we need to make sure there is nothing else going on (ie: Immediately review privacy policy (what is collected about users of other instances), close monitoring of actions, watching movements of mastodon developers). I guess I'd weight my choices 1 & 2 as the same. I need more info from facebook.
![FM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMVJIRUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--a80393b1c2b7f66052622d361947d8bda8d6c4ed/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/d98bcee345e788b7.jpg)
Fenn Martyn Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
AFAIK, threads is not capable of federating with other Fediverse services because it does not currently fully implement the ActivityPub protocol. We still have time to decide what we want to do and I still advocate for a collective 'Terms of Federation'.
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmJnRHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--73dd84d5743960bd764099ee41a3d7100653f991/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/EduardoMercovich2020-redondo-color.png)
Eduardo Mercovich Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
My reasons and proposal were explained at large in the preceding discussion. I believe that the best option is to draft a basic agreement of basic values that -based on it's previous history- we need Fb/Mt to sign before federating with it.
The proposal draft is in https://cryptpad.fr/pad/#/2/pad/edit/5xxQZvxvjfAP2eQTYenLuWOZ/
![MS](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/df7609134344cb732bd624df67b95c2a.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Melissa Santos Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
I think starting cautiously is the way to go here.
I would also like to hear some ideas around silencing Threads and maybe setting up LIMITED_FEDERATION_MODE https://docs.joinmastodon.org/admin/config/#federation with them.
![DR](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/4b7f309f547f8098b35336b569b604ab.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Denman Rooke Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
As much as I do not believe Meta has the best intentions, on principle I think it's important to only defederate if they break certain rules to which we'd also defed from any other instance. I support the creation of a committee to draft a list of conditions that could initiate defederation. It was inevitable that if the fediverse would succeed that eventually corporate interests would start poking around. It's important our response isn't just reactive, but covers all who'd do the same as Meta.
![I](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBelpIRUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--c6724a62cc55cffe803995755bf973b051f4c2c7/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/isabel_commish.png)
Isabel Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
I believe Facebook's threads.net is not like other instances and should be defederated by default. We should also use this opportunity to clarify baseline requirements for social.coop to federate with other instances in general
Deleted account Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
"Wait and see" is an anachronism. You can't claw back compromised privacy. Meta and FB, along with all the enshittification cults, have consistently shown themselves NOT to be trustworthy. There have been many instances of nefarious practices and negative outcomes. I honestly don't understand the trolling that's been going on ^^ up there but: to my mind, we don't have to make any assumptions. They've told us who they are. Never federate.
![W](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMFhiQ2c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--18983c01a893ef08b15216968f8ad7e05d75be01/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/ramen.jpg%3F1568702047)
Wooster Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. |
Knee-jerk corps-are-badism. Give people the freedom to choose their clients. It would be nice to use the same platform that my parents use.
James Harton Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
Meta has a proven history of unethical behaviour, up to and including promoting genocide. Pretty sure we don't need them.
![AS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBLzVIRUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--6e44f9112ab283fcfc1b79819c762ce779a7ae53/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/elephant-yin-yang-460x466.png)
Andrew Shead Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
While decentralization is supposed to be resilient, when one sups with the Devil one should use a long spoon, so, on reflection, I think it best to de-federate Meta and others like it. Ultimately, I don't think we'll be missing anything, and we will continue to be a safe haven should any threadizens what to abandon ship and join us.
Sky Leite Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
If I wanted Facebook to have even more access to my data I'd use their platform. It's very simple to me
![PM](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/259d52a713252b7595cc4d287948b108.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Peter Murray Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
Assume it is a threat and create a list of conditions where we can actively affirm that it is not a threat. (It will probably remain a threat.)
![H](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNmw0RUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--e5cd986fa70e9c1530f3ed42f56e43e479c2b8d1/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/WlxUKzSZ_400x400.jpg)
Harris Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
2 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
4 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. |
If threads.net becomes a way that my friends use the Fediverse, which I think is likely, I would probably leave social.coop if I couldn’t interact with them. I would be pretty sad about that—I’ve been here since 2017!
Separately, while I share the skepticism of Meta, I find something distasteful about excluding Meta’s users, who are numerous and imo more diverse than the Fediverse currently.
I am less afraid of EEE than others are. I think we’re quite resilient against it.
![C](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBeStmRUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--7bc2853a184710b804b06cbc7cf088b01baba541/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/deepfried_1627738653234.jpg)
Calix Thu 6 Jul 2023 9:05PM
@Harris nothing is stopping any `social.coop user from signing up for a threads.net account if they want to participate there
![H](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNmw0RUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--e5cd986fa70e9c1530f3ed42f56e43e479c2b8d1/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/WlxUKzSZ_400x400.jpg)
Harris Thu 6 Jul 2023 9:41PM
@Calix Sure, but if that's the solution we offer people who would like to connect with their friends and family, I think that makes migration away from the indie Mastodon servers more likely, not less? I only have bandwidth for so much social media. Like that's certainly a solution but it seems like it encourages the problem we're ostensibly trying to prevent.
![C](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBeStmRUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--7bc2853a184710b804b06cbc7cf088b01baba541/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/deepfried_1627738653234.jpg)
Calix Sat 8 Jul 2023 10:05AM
@Harris this was the situation so far already – that if people's friends and family were on Facebook but not Mastodon, then Mastodon users needed to make a choice whether to have an account on both, or to pick one – and still is the situation now until Meta switches on federation. Some people probably left the fediverse to go to Blue Sky, some might leave for Threads (although I doubt there's much overlap between the people that Mastodon and Threads appeal to), which is definitely sad, but compromising what makes the fediverse good in the first place to try and prevent that seems like exactly playing into the first step of Embrace / Extend / Extinguish.
![J](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBeHRlRUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--903565c1bb99e50d0608c9c7ff9bbd0d860a308a/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/josiah.jpg)
Josiah Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. | ||
4 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. |
As much as I dislike Meta, I would suggest that defederating simply because of who is running the server and not because of specific principles does not set a good precedent.
![SJK](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a3772d029f133be5b9d3ca2d04f9161b.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Stephanie Jo Kent Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
It seems safest to be pre-emptive. We could still create the conditions that could potentially allow federation in the future.
Dynamic Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
I think that Mastodon and the corporate internet should stay separate, and in particular, social.coop, which is one of the few instances that is democratically run, should stay separate from the corporate internet. Inclusion of threads.net content on our timelines would shift the expectations of our users in ways that make future defederation harder. We should protect our identity as democratic and not corporate.
![MS](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f1d398e8197e6d8d89a9cc477d13e067.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Matt Singleton Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
Facebook is a known, repeat abuser of trust and credulity. The burden of proof is on them.
![LO](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/026f814ff2176be1aee9822b5b597100.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Luke Opperman Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
I support starting from preemptive block as well as drafting conditions that any large instance needs to meet for federation. I would draft those conditions to specifically apply to already-large networks merging with fedi, but would be fine if they also were applied to all large instances.
![JN](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBeUU0RUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--57be35e10986ee80485a26b7a648951dcea336e1/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/jnf.bw.avatar.jpg)
Joshua Neds-Fox [@[email protected]] Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
Defensive posture against corporate enclosure.
![MN](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNisvRVE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--43b6f4fee9884fc4fcf5268c24dbe1f565d51792/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBPZ2h3Ym1jNkZISmxjMmw2WlY5MGIxOXNhVzFwZEZzSGFRR0FhUUdBT2dwellYWmxjbnNIT2d4eGRXRnNhWFI1YVZVNkNuTjBjbWx3VkE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoidmFyaWF0aW9uIn19--27fed336878c6ac9959aa30801666fb68e51757f/goats.jpeg)
Matt Noyes Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
I have an account on FB for two reasons: to stay in touch with a number of people with whom I have history, and to participate in local organizing conversations/networks. It would be great to see people move to the fediverse, and I regularly promote that. At the same time, it is clear to me that Meta is anathema to the values and principles that drew me here and poses a threat to this wide and plural arena for experimentation and self-organization.
![JF](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f1acc6318028fdba9874c77bc622a2fb.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Jeff Forcier Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
2 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
4 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. |
I suspect the halo effect may work in Mastodon’s favor at least as well as it could the other way around, and so think we should err on the side of cautiously federating.
![KL](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/0b30bb077975c9945ac9eceb65166dea.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Konrad Lawson Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
2 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
4 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. |
I don’t trust Meta at all, and I think it is fair to put it on warning, but also recognize that a likely very large number of perfectly normal people, who find Mastodon a challenge or who have never heard of it will use other networks we don’t care for to communicate with the world. A federated system is supposed to facilitate communication and tools to restrict it should, whenever possible, be used with great care and not preemptively.
![JK](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/931714ba7cbaebf285d294a5a24827b9.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Jonas Kanafani Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
While the situation might be clear now (not launching in the EU,...), following in the wake of threads will probably be many VC-funded startups that are not as visibly negative. Having a set of rules that define what we defederate seems important to me.
![LT](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/1c077d5b754f33927fa9693f15236897.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Luke Thorburn Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
4 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. |
I think large platforms adopting open protocols is a win. Would be open to setting a list of conditions under which we defederate, but would like to see this first and don't think we should block them ex ante.
![BS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNjl1RUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--f25b0e2ed860920f85ae8710811480d5b60c6f09/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/9b8ef827f54b2c72.jpeg)
Brecht Savelkoul Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
The fact that they're not launching in the EU at all is basically an admission of guilt from their side. So defederate immediately.
I also see no reason to waste anyone's time and effort on creating a working group right now. Maybe if Meta decides to meet the minimum standards of EU privacy law, we can set up a working group to look into this again, but right now I'd defederate no questions asked.
![LJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/97cfa4b9f1c238e7621637c74560b724.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Laura James Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
2 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
4 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. |
I am struggling a little with the combined statements of 'assumption' and 'action'. I don't necessarily buy all the assumptions, so am ranking based on the actions alone. I feel a 'watching brief' is the right approach in this case.
![TD](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNzBKRWc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--91f22dc9b60a7a0aca5d9c8cf75a001477fe598b/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/ProfilePhoto2020.png)
Tim Davies Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
3 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. | ||
4 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. |
Proactice defederation with conditions avoids user data being exchanged with Meta prior to being clear on the conditions that members of social.coop want to see in place. It appears that fediverse participation of threads may not be a launch feature, and this should allow time for criteria. Any criteria developed should be general enough to apply across large instances entering fediverse, not only Meta.
Django Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
I think this poll will ultimately dilute and contradict the previous poll where a clear majority supported defederation and signing the pact.
![N](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBeVV6RUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--486f70dac4c355cfb9a9823b546b7b0fa51c5743/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/nic.jpg)
Nic Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
I think it's good Meta are exploring an open tech that offers interoperability and portability. I (reluctantly, occasionally) use their products to msg some family members. That said, as well as the reasons many have outlined, the simple scale difference of a 3bn Daily-Active-User publicly-traded monopoly vs a 2m DAU mostly non-profit federation makes me think we can't exercise too much caution here. But we could review again after their Activity Pub features are running? Thanks for doing this.
![BS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBd2NLQ2c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--7d88e7abc0c004ffe1ab764cc8ef8695f9c58427/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/NightHackingEdit.jpg%3F1474862005)
Billy Smith Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
Also, have the "Nothing below this line" option, so that anything set below there by the people voting gets an automatic and emphatic "No".
This is based on the similar voting system used by London Hackspace.
Brian Vaughan Wed 5 Jul 2023 7:24PM
@billysmith I'm not familiar with how that works, but it sounds like it may have been a better option for this vote. Where can we read more about it?
![BS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBd2NLQ2c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--7d88e7abc0c004ffe1ab764cc8ef8695f9c58427/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/NightHackingEdit.jpg%3F1474862005)
Billy Smith Thu 6 Jul 2023 8:50PM
@Brian Vaughan
The main page about the LHS Trustee elections can be found here: https://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/Organisation/Trustees_Election
They link to a full description of the voting algorithm here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_single_transferable_votes#Meek
When you vote the preferences are ranked according to what each voter wants, and weighted according to the ordering, a la secondary-preference voting.
We found that including all of the options without a "Nothing below this line" option, meant that people would find their votes being counted towards options that they did not want.
Including a "Nothing below this line" means that the secondary preferences for the undesired options do not get counted.
![DB](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/02278a5c9cbc8952d77bb805f5b23017.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Doug Belshaw Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
2 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
4 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. |
I don't use any Meta products (including WhatsApp) and so usually take a hard line on this kind of stuff. But if the Fediverse is to be truly inclusive, it has to include people and organisations we don't like / agree with. I wouldn't support a browser that stopped me from accessing sites that other people thought were harmful, for example.
![ES](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d09b0c40cfc33125691b128b3fbe539d.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Ed Summers @edsu Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
I have seen abundant evidence that Meta has been a bad actor in designing and deploying social media from its beginning. I have friends and colleagues who use Meta services like Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. Being able to communicate with them on social.coop would be awesome. But I am very concerned about the infrastructural effects that a Meta fediverse deployment will have on shaping discourse, repurposing content, and bending the ActivityPub standard to their needs.
![CA](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBeE05RUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--79fac234c4d547e1a185ff95d9feee8742068046/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/chad_square.jpg)
Chad Adams Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
I'm the weirdo in my social circle who abstains from all FB products - I don't miss them and am not in any rush to receive that content. So I think we can probably be patient before federating. Defining our conditions before federating seems like a sensible place to start.
![J](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/67cf115f9ae7d523d9483293b7768ece.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Jay Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
4 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. |
“Scraping my data” is not a real concern, as (a) Meta can do this anyway, and (b) your social.coop ID is not tied to any other identity unless you make that connection explicit.
Techno-political zealotry (“zuck bad”) is not reason enough to prevent users from being able to follow their friends and family.
“Limit” versus “Suspend” should be adequate to deal with most of the real concerns.
![TB](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNjdSQ1E9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--033f92ba1e88b6f5ba1bb118e6b7c2a5d0b27f17/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/tbeckett.jpg%3F1503923965)
Thomas Beckett Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
Let's decide and revisit the decision in a year.
Luis Villa Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
2 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
4 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. |
I strongly dislike Facebook, but most of the problems identified here (like “having access to the social graph”) are inherent to the nature of public social tools. So I’ve voted for federate-and-analyze, essentially.
I would particularly not over-focus on the EU problem, since I’m roughly 1,000% certain that no EU-based instance (not just Meta) that federates with a US-based instance is in GDPR compliance—it’s arguably impossible for non-EU volunteer-based orgs to comply with GDPR.
![T](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMkZlRUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--c141efbcb49e00a4f15e02f8bcc3a674a6fd5e11/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/242F6EA6-8C39-4BE8-A625-CFDD9D1FC280.jpeg)
tanoujin Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
I personally do not want any contact in any direction with any meta product with my mastodon/fediverse account, because I have a physical reaction to this stuff. It makes me sick. So I need good reasons to exceptionally seek the Zuckerberg empire for a small dose. I have other accounts for that purpose I almost never use.
Clayton ([email protected]) Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
4 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. |
I only support the last, "don't make assumptions" option at this time.
Connecting with the many friends and family who are currently on Meta would be a huge boon to our relationships, social.coop and the fediverse in general. My hope is to onboard as many of them as possible onto Mastodon. I'm optimistic that with the "network effect" solved, many will find the ad-free, algorithm-free experience refreshing and switch. Pre-emptive defederation prevents us from even trying that.
![SJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc1214d5e009b136822daa982ee675cf.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Scott Jenson Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
2 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
4 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. |
SUCH A BIASED POLL! Two of the Four are basically GTFO. This poll would have been much better if it had two options: Leave-now or Wait-a-bit-then-decide
![BMH](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c765934363224852356e0d9a992b3a23.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Benjamin Mako Hill Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
2 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
4 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. |
I would like more deliberation on this issue. It has been ongoing and is being shortcircuited. Ranked choice voting doesn't makes sense until the community has been able to articulate a full range of choices and I am unconvinced that this has happened. I don't buy the urgency that is being used to push this through.
I'd also like more information that will will have once the thing is actually launched.
Kenneth Been Thu 6 Jul 2023 1:27AM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
(My reasoning is in the long post I added below.)
Johannes Ernst Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
2 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. |
The existence of threads.net is a two-sided sword. While the bad side is scary, it does have a good side: bringing lots of new users into the federation. Better to let them come in, than keep them out, and we can always defederate later.
![N](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/4e7722d7a7c3336498082eca2d1f4550.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Noah Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
Y'all make whatever committees you want. If Social.coop federates with Threads I'll be disappointedly finding a new instance.
(edited to add: It would be so easy to simply make an account on Threads if you want to connect with people who are there. You can do that right now, today, without making the rest of us rejoin facebook. Quite a few of us left on purpose and don't want to go back.)
@[email protected] Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
As an entity that tries to operate democratically, we also have a function as a role model. That's why I think it's especially important not to simply accept metas actions unconditionally and defederate for the time being.
![BTM](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e87c7ee8b650874cf2ada2dbc6b91d34.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Bjorn Toft Madsen Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
4 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. |
I’m not a fan of this voting format. This is forcing me to make a choice on opinions I do not agree with. I can’t rank some of the choices very well as I disagree with them wholeheartedly.
You ask a yes or no question and then ask me to rank 4 options, 3 of which I inherently disagree with.
Threads isn’t on the fediverse yet.
When and if Threads joins the fediverse we should make a decision based on facts. Right now all we have is speculation. Let’s wait and see.
![C](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBeHluQ2c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--ddf1703e212e2ef5d5d2d7b71025d706d96276cf/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/yoni_1.jpg%3F1600280655)
cacu Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
I do not trust Meta, nor in its practices
![JO](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/0f7d647c9b5fa290331ee33eb65394cd.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Jere Odell Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
I like the idea of creating a draft list of conditions. However, I am doubtful that these can be met or that Meta would be interested in meeting conditions.
![G](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/66db9e436738991619a59e8ab8061e64.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Greg Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
Given Threads is now out, we no longer need to "assume" anything. We know what their moderation policies are in practice so we can now make some very informed decisions. Notable information on what their moderation policy allows: support and engagement with known (and admitted) anti-trans/gay organizations who are well known for throwing their supporters at innocent folks on other platforms. Let's not allow that here. I will move instances if we don't defederate.
![D](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBK3VxRVE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--4cb969f90e65b6bbe2633c3735f9a87b2c6f71ee/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/makowka%20picrew%20front%20short%20hair.png)
dyani Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
Absolutely love this ranked choice voting as it more fluidly facilitates compromise and forward movement and action, instead of stalemates.
![JNM](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d37cb81a0b3708fdc5aa03165241d700.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
J. Nathan Matias Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
I have recently been persuaded by Erin Kissane's observation that [federating with Threads could also create a moderation capacity issue and expose people to significant risk from targeted harassment](https://social.coop/@[email protected]/110669098136994760), just by being so big and difficult to manage through defederation. So I'm now in support of defederating until we have clarity on the moderation consequences— or being prepared to defederate when/if we see unusual levels of harassment.
![RJ](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMDJERHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--e2221914e0b167928790aa44be694b3f71710b58/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/spindlecrop.png)
rich jensen Sat 8 Jul 2023 4:37PM
@J. Nathan Matias I think your new position may corellate to ranking #2: 'Defederate first and set conditions to federate'above #3: 'Wait and see.'
![SF](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/6a762b6817e4cafdfdf4de534ecb6308.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Scott Feeney Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
Facebook has a long track record of harmful actions, and Threads is allowing hate accounts like Libs of TikTok that we would likely defederate from any other instance that allowed.
![LF](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBKyt0Q1E9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--23e4e19c1b8257380285601b5c2d7c7f461ebfbf/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/lynn.jpg%3F1560123708)
Lynn Foster Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
I don't belong to any FB apps, and don't want them to have any reason to have access to data in social.coop, to the best of our ability. I would like to vote just for #2, with "nothing below the line". I don't see spending time on conditions, they can't be trusted, and that's ongoing time better spend elsewhere. This has only to do with Meta, nothing to do with people who have or will join Threads, or what they might post.
![MP](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBODM3Q1E9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--833d0200714239066630999c6f2ea8a7cc10445c/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/20171101_152738.jpg%3F1623703372)
Michael Potter Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
I don't trust Meta at all. I'm not opposed to communication with Meta, but I know that what they're really after is the ability to track us and get metrics, or possibly, to out-compete the public instances and erase us.
![K](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBOXY1RHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--cd67a466f4350b8364a5991458186bf46d8c039f/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/FutM0Adm_400x400.jpg)
Kévin Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
I don't trust Zuckerberg but I get the impression they're not likely to federate or at least if they do it'll be super restricted to who gets "selected". In terms of stealing our data, they do that without federation and I don't think a block'l. stop them, but this is a great step towards handling commercial instances in general
![BM](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a214798349cb7048ea16ac08e5c9ff81.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
benjamin melançon Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
Boycotting Facebook on principal is what everyone should do. They have done a great deal of evil (banning and limiting anarchists and even progressives, while coddling reactionaries and fascists all over the world, with genocidal results) and have no pretense of changing their ways. Pragmatically we should federate (if allowed!) to make that case, but only if safe for us. One thing i've not seen mentioned is their alacrity in responding to subpoenas; so interaction gives gov't a one-stop shop.
![RJ](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMDJERHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--e2221914e0b167928790aa44be694b3f71710b58/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/spindlecrop.png)
rich jensen Sat 8 Jul 2023 4:41PM
@benjamin melançon ranking #3 as your top preference indicates a stance of 'Wait and see not 'defederate first'. Was this your intention?
![AW](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBejdOQ1E9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--3e0b736c5574a348e9f14ff3b254d97ace8e43d8/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/AaronWolf-smaller.png%3F1454520682)
Aaron Wolf Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
Threat indeed, and it seems easier to not federate with them by default, but I don't know about long-term best strategy
![DM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBOTU4Q2c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--fa6f0cad0162446d3796cabe3c26649bb4be41f9/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/new_years_richmond_crop.jpg%3F1586510634)
David Mynors Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
I don't trust Meta
![WM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBeWo1RGc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--ec251170deb014287b78142e80e998cfdfaa9d34/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/will.png)
Will Murphy Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. |
Block - the structure of this poll makes it impossible for me to vote in a way that reflects my views and its result cannot meet the bylaws requirement of "more agree votes than disagree votes" in order to be actionable.
Full explanation here: https://www.loomio.com/d/AZcJK6y2/discussion-support-the-anti-meta-fedi-pact/256
![RJ](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMDJERHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--e2221914e0b167928790aa44be694b3f71710b58/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/spindlecrop.png)
rich jensen Sat 8 Jul 2023 4:47PM
@Will Murphy block noted. Fwiw, my assumption was that this was still effective 'reading of sentiment' not a direction to Admins. I'm looking forward to a next iteration yes/no resolution of direction to defederate.
![N](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBeVV6RUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--486f70dac4c355cfb9a9823b546b7b0fa51c5743/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/nic.jpg)
Nic Wed 12 Jul 2023 10:06AM
@Will Murphy it appears that the bylaws have interpreted your Block as a 'then lets do nothing'. This clearly isn't what your rankings suggest, or what the consensus of the vote suggests - but are a byproduct of your block and the rules around blocks ("Proposals with Block require at least 9 times more Agree votes than Disagree and Block votes in order to pass."). Perhaps @Brian Vaughan can let you reconsider if you didn't realise this is what your action would do? Otherwise either the bylaws or Loomio voting feels open to question, as they are not able to reflect demonstrable consensus, but do consume notable amounts of volunteered time.
![NT](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ce642fc3dfb146742950d05a7b62e003.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Nathan TeBlunthuis Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
I believe that little is already known about the consequences of federating with threads.net to social.coop or the fediverse. There are both possible ways that threads can benefit the fediverse, but given Meta's intentions and the "embrace, extend, extinguish" model, we should be on guard. I think federating initially is desirable to make it possible to evaluate whether we prefer to federate with threads or not.
![A](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMzdFRHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--b6df3ba4228564348a4f3fa8093636dc9be9dd50/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/6e42b13b27773496(1).jpg)
Alex Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
The word threat here is doing a lot of the heavy lifting and might need defining more.
A threat to us being a community together on social.coop?
A threat to the wider development of the fediverse?
etc
![JG](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d79056cd20103755ce7faf969356a40c.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Jamie Gaehring Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
3 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. | ||
4 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. |
placed my comments below:
https://www.loomio.com/d/AZcJK6y2/discussion-support-the-anti-meta-fedi-pact/266
![RJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fdcdaa0e0b449a09b925d9e85be68811.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Rich Jensen Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
I would change 'unless' in 1# to 'until'. I'm less concerned about 'threat' than devaluing social.coop as an alternative to Meta. I encourage the work of committees hashing things out to make public statements so I'm picking #1 over #2.
![DVN](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBd0ZzQ2c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--e895d139d9a4ba05953f321b1495609cfd9e0f05/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/IMG_20170930_161550.jpg%3F1555007279)
Dave V. ND9JR Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
Nothing I haven't already stated. I think Meta has nothing but bad intentions based on their history and would compare allowing them to federate with us with allowing an oil refinery to be built right next to a housing coop's land even knowing the oil company's history of pollution and environmental law violations.
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBejAwRUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--aa5a549d93e12f434002b4d71f70c066e3129f7a/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/courmes.jpg)
Eric Maugendre @[email protected] Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
I understand a high probability of "Embrace, extend, and extinguish": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
![O](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f8411662ffbc88aecdd85bad48260891.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Éamonn O'Brien-Strain Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
2 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
4 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. |
I think Threads is more likely to be a benefit to the Fediverse than not
![L](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNms2RUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--3c54c31c4b9a74d44334a216dd458dc923b4c376/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/IMG-20210519-WA0008.jpeg)
Luke Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
Mine is 2, 1, 3, 4. I'm sorry but for some reason the drag and drop did not work for me on phone,despite perseverance, and phone is my only internet access at present.
![JDC](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBME5ERUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--6b5b8ded761be61d540f647d590917dfdc32ee43/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/justin-r-c.png)
Justin du Coeur Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
2 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
4 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. |
I really dislike the wording here -- honestly, this one comes across to me like a push poll, with over-strong and emotive wording that skews the results. IMO, those tend to be counter-productive...
![O](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMzViRUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--8105a24dba340010645f29a32073a117f62211fc/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/avatar.jpg)
Océane Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
I definitely will federate with Threads from my single-user instance because I'm mostly sharing anti-social media documentation anyway, but social.coop is a community around cooperatives, not a propaganda instance. I'd like to broadcast my message to as many people as possible, but this isn't how people use social.coop as far as I understand (which sends a bad message since the goal is to socialize the means of production and to make labor and resources accessible to everyone, but anyway).
![DC](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBOGdyQ3c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--4887357af7be5499339c0d9d2d13528d4fcfff56/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/768-1024.jpg%3F1591111676)
Derek Caelin Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
4 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. |
Threads is more of a threat to its own users than it is to the Fediverse.
The information it will glean about fediverse users is marginal - especially considering that most users default to using public posts. On the other hand, there is a benefit for social.coop members to connect with friends and more public entities that use Threads.
I believe Eugen Rochko's recent blog addresses the risks posed by Threads well.
![CW](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/41a6caeab1cdcebab20ee5e640f34349.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Casey Watts Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
3 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. | ||
4 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. |
I like the idea of a world where we are on an even playing field with Threads and can negotiate with them as peers, even if they are unlikely to meet our expectations. It’s a good faith stance for us to take as one of many groups online.
If/when we federate with them, I also want us to be clear what would cause us to defederate too - likely very similar to the inverse of our expectations to be willing to federate.
![TR](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2de3a98faf483601499b609ecc27aa4c.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Tom Resing Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. |
We can't assume that Meta's new Threads investment is a threat. What if it turns out to be better than expected? I don't support Meta and won't willingly give them any of my personal information. However, as long as they follow all the governance of Mastodon and social.coop, I don't see how we can treat them differently than any other organization in this decentralized community.
![PG](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMFpqQ2c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--fe666ef6291cf7ae2ef7324c9785579c6d1d3758/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/sea_twit.jpg%3F1511635754)
Peter Gowen Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
Meta is a known bad actor. If I ever want to engage with folks on Threads, I will create an account on it, or on another instance that is federated with it.
Eamon Caddigan Tue 4 Jul 2023 8:59PM
1 - We assume that threads.net is inherently and imminently a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop immediately defederates threads.net. | ||
2 - We assume that threads.net is a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will defederate threads.net, unless it meets certain conditions that demonstrate it will not be a threat. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions that threads.net must meet, for Social.Coop to consider federating. | ||
3 - We assume that threads.net is especially likely to be a threat to Social.Coop and the Fediverse. Social.Coop will federate with threads.net, but will be prepared to defederate if certain conditions occur. We create a committee to draft a list of conditions under which Social.Coop would defederate threads.net. | ||
4 - We do not make any assumptions about threads.net. Social.Coop does not immediately defederate threads.net, and does not create any special conditions for federating with threads.net. |
I just want to say that the UI for Loomio is not set up well for ranked-choice voting where the choices have text this long that starts so similarly ("we assume that threads.net blah blah blah". I couldn't differentiate the choices on my phone and even on a real computer it's a pain. Future poll-posters would be well advised to just omit introductions that repeat across the majority of options.
![RG](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBK0xZRVE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--7a581de88c41bcec9b40d2bb53a4dc7ab8efdb69/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/IMG_4141.CR2.jpg)
Robert Guthrie Tue 11 Jul 2023 2:56AM
@Eamon Caddigan Loomio dev here. I'm new to the group and enjoying seeing how you're all using the app (and making quick improvements on the fly). Poll options actually have a name and 'meaning' field. The meaning field is not in use here, but it would help a lot. I'm considering what the length limit for name should be and how to encourage use of the meaning field.
Eamon Caddigan Wed 19 Jul 2023 4:18AM
@Robert Guthrie thanks!
Item removed
![MN](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNisvRVE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--43b6f4fee9884fc4fcf5268c24dbe1f565d51792/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBPZ2h3Ym1jNkZISmxjMmw2WlY5MGIxOXNhVzFwZEZzSGFRR0FhUUdBT2dwellYWmxjbnNIT2d4eGRXRnNhWFI1YVZVNkNuTjBjbWx3VkE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoidmFyaWF0aW9uIn19--27fed336878c6ac9959aa30801666fb68e51757f/goats.jpeg)
Matt Noyes Wed 5 Jul 2023 2:09AM
Social.Coop is already a multi-platform organization: Mastodon, Loomio, Open Collective, Matrix, Git.Coop, Meet.Coop, Nextcloud & Jitsi, via Mayfirst.coop, others? So there is precedent for this. The admin demand involved is what motivated a recent discussion and vote on a proposal to form an organizing circle. https://www.loomio.com/p/OI8kEjVz/social-coop-organizing-circle-proposal So, we need to get the organizing circle up and running to be able to organize the labor involved, but no reason not to discuss it!
![TD](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNzBKRWc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--91f22dc9b60a7a0aca5d9c8cf75a001477fe598b/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/ProfilePhoto2020.png)
Tim Davies Wed 5 Jul 2023 8:25AM
As we take these discussions forward, it may be useful, for those not deeply familiar with the consequences of de-federation, to unpack a bit more the implications of the decision in plain language.
E.g.
'immediate defederation, no conditions' = no messages will be exchanged with threads.net / users of threads unless a future social.coop decision reverses this policy; whereas
'federate but be prepared to defederate on certain conditions' = social.coop users will be able to follow and see content from threads.net users, and have their content seen and interacted with on threads.net. If threads.net actions on data use or moderation violate the principles developed by social.coop, then social.coop admins would be empowered to cut off threads.net, and social.coop users would lose their threads.net followers / following, and ability to interact across the two.
![J](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/67cf115f9ae7d523d9483293b7768ece.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Jay Thu 6 Jul 2023 5:20PM
@Tim Davies It sounds like the first is SUSPEND, and the second is do nothing? What about LIMIT?
![TB](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNjdSQ1E9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--033f92ba1e88b6f5ba1bb118e6b7c2a5d0b27f17/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/tbeckett.jpg%3F1503923965)
Thomas Beckett Wed 5 Jul 2023 3:13PM
I regret that I have not had time to participate in this vigorous discussion. From what I have gathered, I have an additional proposal: whatever decision is taken on this issue, that it be time-bound, and revisited in 12 months. Let's take a wait-and-see approach to the Meta situation (either way), and revise strategy appropriately.
![BS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBd2NLQ2c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--7d88e7abc0c004ffe1ab764cc8ef8695f9c58427/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/NightHackingEdit.jpg%3F1474862005)
Billy Smith Thu 6 Jul 2023 8:39PM
@Thomas Beckett
This approach means allowing FB to track everyone for a year before defederating.
FB will NOT delete that data when requested.
It's why they didn't launch in the EU, as FB's normal M.O. will be in breach of the GDPR.
You do know that FB tries to track everyone, not just the people who use FB, but also all of the people that are connected to them via their social interactions even if the people being tracked are not FB users, yes?
This pattern was one of the reasons that the GDPR was created.
My current guess is that FB will keep all of the data, and continue to track everyone, but they won't make the data available to anyone who hasn't signed their NDA.
This is the pattern of behaviour that FB has been following for years.
The tracking data is where FB's primary profit-margin comes from, and they won't let go of that without a fight.
![J](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/67cf115f9ae7d523d9483293b7768ece.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Jay Thu 6 Jul 2023 4:38PM
Can there be more clarity around whether this means a LIMIT or a SUSPEND?
A LIMIT on Threads means that nobody on Social dot coop will see content from any Thread users unless they explicitly follow them. This means that if somebody from Threads hurls hate speech at you, you will not see it.
A SUSPEND on Threads means that users of Social dot coop can’t follow people on Threads even if they want to, and users on Threads can’t follow users on Social dot coop even if they want to be followed.
With a LIMIT, any individual user can still personally block the entire domain if they want, and will never see any content from Threads, and will not have their content visible to anybody on Threads, and Mark Zuckerberg cannot access their personal data or their precious bodily fluids.
I’m fine with a global LIMIT. But personally I know there will be people I want to follow on Threads. Preventing social dot coop users from following people they want to follow feels like an overreaction. “EEE” is not a good enough reason — this is political posturing and won’t affect Meta in the least. Even though I personally strongly dislike Meta and wish everybody used Mastodon instead, this is not realistic.
Brian Vaughan Thu 6 Jul 2023 5:57PM
@jsit I assumed implementation details should be worked out after deciding our intentions.
![J](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/67cf115f9ae7d523d9483293b7768ece.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Jay Thu 6 Jul 2023 6:19PM
@Brian Vaughan But these are very different moderation actions. I’m not sure how you can decide whether to do “one or the other” of them without knowing which one you’re talking about.
Brian Vaughan Fri 7 Jul 2023 8:07AM
@jsit I had first run a sense-check, asking if we should collectively sign on to the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact. A slim majority favored that, but the discussion led me to think that there might be more support for defederating from threads.net under certain conditions. So I tried to articulate what I thought was a reasonable range of conditions for defederating, from pre-emptively, to not necessarily doing so at all. That was already a lot to jam into a single vote; I thought that if we defederated conditionally, we'd have to make do with a very general sense of what sort of conditions, coming from the discussion attached to this vote, and set up some sort of committee to determine those conditions in detail. If we did, after all, vote to pre-emptively defederate, then I would have proposed a formal vote on signing the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact. I wasn't aware of the difference between a LIMIT and a SUSPEND, but important as that distinction is, that isn't the main question to be decided here. The question here is whether we, collectively, believe that Meta's threads.net is, definitely or possibly, an extraordinary threat.
![J](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/67cf115f9ae7d523d9483293b7768ece.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Jay Fri 7 Jul 2023 12:25PM
@Brian Vaughan The leading poll option reads: “Social coop will defederate threads dot net.” It’s not at all clear what this means if limit vs suspend isn’t clarified there. How can one vote on “defederation” if one doesn’t know what that entails?
Django Fri 7 Jul 2023 12:32PM
@Jay Defederation means suspend.
![J](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/67cf115f9ae7d523d9483293b7768ece.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Jay Fri 7 Jul 2023 12:45PM
@Django How are people voting in this poll supposed to know that?
Brian Vaughan Fri 7 Jul 2023 4:32PM
@jsit Defederation means severing federation. As far as I can see from reading the documentation, LIMIT doesn't sever federation. So it's not defederation.
Brian Vaughan Fri 7 Jul 2023 5:06PM
As this thread points out, limiting won't help at all.
https://octodon.social/@siege/110666824291864135
![J](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/67cf115f9ae7d523d9483293b7768ece.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Jay Fri 7 Jul 2023 6:49PM
@Brian Vaughan I think you are being disingenuous. People use “defederate” ambiguously, and it’s not made clear here which meaning is implied.
What your linked thread points out is that Threads users will still be able to see your posts on social coop even with a Limit. This is true, but they can also see your posts if they are logged out and looking at your profile.
Again, anybody who is individually worried can Suspend Threads themselves, and their content will not be visible.
![ES](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d09b0c40cfc33125691b128b3fbe539d.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Ed Summers @edsu Fri 7 Jul 2023 7:02PM
@Jay I think @Brian Vaughan has actually done his best to bring this topic up in a constructive way, and has also synthesized a very complex discussion. We may not all agree with each others positions, but I think things will work best if we assume positive intent.
Brian Vaughan Fri 7 Jul 2023 7:25PM
@jsit It's not disingenuous. Defederate means to de-federate. It means to sever the connections that constitute federation. Retaining federation, as LIMIT does, is not defederating. I was just looking through Social.Coop's announcements through Mastodon, and on one occasion, we had limited mastodon.world and techhub.social, and on another, mastodon.social. These were described as temporary measures to deal with transient problems; I don't recall anyone describing them as defederating.
And these were fundamentally different situations than we're discussing with threads.net.
![AW](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBejdOQ1E9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--3e0b736c5574a348e9f14ff3b254d97ace8e43d8/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/AaronWolf-smaller.png%3F1454520682)
Aaron Wolf Thu 6 Jul 2023 6:00PM
@Jay sounds like LIMIT is also the way to go for the goal of communicating to people on Threads and recruiting them to leave it and join better servers… anyone who wants to do that could actively seek out places to post anti-Threads messages to Threads users. Right?
![J](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/67cf115f9ae7d523d9483293b7768ece.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Jay Thu 6 Jul 2023 6:22PM
@Aaron Wolf It’s also the way to go if users will just plain want to follow Threads users. I know I will.
Brian Vaughan Thu 6 Jul 2023 6:23PM
@jsit You could just make a Threads account.
![J](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/67cf115f9ae7d523d9483293b7768ece.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Jay Thu 6 Jul 2023 6:26PM
@Brian Vaughan But I do not want to make a Threads account.
![AW](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBejdOQ1E9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--3e0b736c5574a348e9f14ff3b254d97ace8e43d8/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/AaronWolf-smaller.png%3F1454520682)
Aaron Wolf Thu 6 Jul 2023 6:38PM
@Jay that's compatible, as long as this happens and you do follow Threads users, please consider regularly making side-note comments to them inviting them to leave Threads or otherwise expressing concerns about Threads.
Consciousness-raising is more important than purism IMO
Brian Vaughan Thu 6 Jul 2023 5:14PM
I had assumed that threads.net would "play nice" at first, and try to build up trust. However, it has become obvious that it has no intention of playing nice at all. On its first day, users are reporting that threads.net is promoting hate groups, including Libs of TikTok, Moms 4 Liberty, and Gays Against Groomers, and the fascist politician Marjorie Taylor Greene. This is already significantly worse behavior than from most Fediverse instances Social.Coop has already defederated. The only qualification here is that threads.net has not yet enabled its ActivityPub bridge.
![ES](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d09b0c40cfc33125691b128b3fbe539d.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Ed Summers @edsu Thu 6 Jul 2023 6:07PM
@Brian Vaughan and also seems to have accessibility issues: https://mashable.com/article/threads-alt-text
![BS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBd2NLQ2c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--7d88e7abc0c004ffe1ab764cc8ef8695f9c58427/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/NightHackingEdit.jpg%3F1474862005)
Billy Smith Thu 6 Jul 2023 8:54PM
@Brian Vaughan
FB are not playing nice with even their existing users:
Brian Vaughan Sat 8 Jul 2023 1:41AM
More on Threads and unmoderated bigotry.
Brian Vaughan Sat 8 Jul 2023 11:30PM
In fairness, apparently Threads moderators removed a post by Libs of TikTok for offensive content.
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBdzRqQ2c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--88a36505e15e229054843e2bb073eb0f0cea9e44/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/avatar.jpg%3F1517959830)
Erik Moeller Thu 6 Jul 2023 7:57PM
If defederation is implemented, are we talking about limiting or suspending per https://docs.joinmastodon.org/admin/moderation/#server-wide-moderation? I'm much more comfortable with limiting than a full suspension, because it would still allow me to follow reasonable accounts on threads.net.
![BMH](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c765934363224852356e0d9a992b3a23.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Benjamin Mako Hill Thu 6 Jul 2023 10:32PM
Email is the mostly important and widely used federated network service on the Internet.
I have hosted my own email server for nearly 25 years because I do not want to trust my personal communication infrastructure entirely to large companies I don't trust. I have helped host email for many other people through organizations like social.coop for many others who feel similarly but don't have the same technical skills.
That does not mean I don't want to ever send or receive emails from people who use Google (GMail) or Microsoft (Outlook, Hotmail, etc). Doing so would make it quite impossible for to communicate with many people I care about and work with, including—I'll bet—most of the people in this thread.
Centralization of email within companies Google and Microsoft has had many negative impacts on email and I think we should learn from that experience. But it seems clear that we stand more to lose more than we gain by simply blocking Threads before anything happens.
![MP](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBODM3Q1E9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--833d0200714239066630999c6f2ea8a7cc10445c/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/20171101_152738.jpg%3F1623703372)
Michael Potter Fri 7 Jul 2023 10:54AM
@Benjamin Mako Hill This points to the heart of the matter for me, and the analogy with email is accurate. It's not so much that we don't want to communicate with loved ones and creators and organizations on Threads as we want to avoid the threat they represent on two fronts:
Embrace and Extend - as we've discussed, the anticompetitive practice of pretending to join an open system in order to dominate or eliminate it.
-
Data gathering - Lest we forget Cambridge Analytica and how they used Meta/Facebook's data-driven microtargeted ads to get Trump elected and Brexit to "yes." What are they really after? Our real names and locations, our likes, social connections, and enough metrics to build a psychological profile on us. The question is, can we allow communication with Threads without letting them profile us?
![BMH](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c765934363224852356e0d9a992b3a23.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Benjamin Mako Hill Fri 7 Jul 2023 8:20PM
@Michael Potter Reason #1 is important but I don't see how preemptively defederating is helpful. If they join and extend the protocol in ways we don't like, we can choose to defederate then. Preemptive defederation feels like destroying property to prevent someone from stealing or vandalizing it. Or not making money because you don't to have someone take it from you later.
Reason #2 is interesting but also doesn't feel like a reason to defederate. I'm completely confident that Meta already has public Fediverse data and will continue to get it. Many people do! They will only get private data like DMs to the extent that individuals chose to communicate with people on Threads. I have written about exactly this situation in relation to email in a pretty wide read essay: https://mako.cc/copyrighteous/google-has-most-of-my-email-because-it-has-all-of-yours
It's a real concern but it's a choice I'd rather make an individual when communicating with my GMail using friends. If something were sensitive, I might not send it to a GMail users. I am absolutely confident that I benefit more from being able to send email to GMail users than Google gains from having copies of those emails. Otherwise I wouldn't do it. Do you disagree?
riotRhino Thu 6 Jul 2023 11:49PM
I too am interested in adding Lemmy/Kbin to social.coop. Now that Reddit is pushing so many out it would be great if we could support an alternative.
![NS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBOGU1Q1E9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--e9a5216b0c43bd20be985b04a523f1dac5d94986/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/nathan_schneider.jpg%3F1442278666)
Nathan Schneider Fri 7 Jul 2023 12:34PM
Point of process: the ranked choice vote is not something that can constitute a formal decision according to the bylaws. It does not, for instance, clearly state a proposal or allow for blocks. There is a guide to making proposals here: https://wiki.social.coop/wiki/Make_a_proposal
![ES](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d09b0c40cfc33125691b128b3fbe539d.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Ed Summers @edsu Fri 7 Jul 2023 12:44PM
@Nathan Schneider thanks for pointing to the process. As you probably saw it did come up in the discussion leading up to the creation of the ranked choice vote. I guess we need to close it early and restart?
I personally think that the proposal was quite clear, can you say more about how it wasn't? Instructions for blocking were also included, even if there isn't an explicit choice for that.
Brian Vaughan Fri 7 Jul 2023 7:32PM
@ntnsndr I will again emphasize that we had several weeks of discussion, in which I repeatedly asked for advice on process. No one offered advice, and no one objected to my suggestions for how to handle process. I delayed submitting a formal proposal specifically to solicit advice on process, but the fact that threads.net had officially announced its launch meant that we were running out of time. I specifically asked about how to include a "block" option, then suggested it be spelled out, and that we would tally votes manually if necessary to account for blocks, because I couldn't find a way to do it through Loomio.
It doesn't seem appropriate to me to object to the vote halfway through the voting process, when a quarter of the membership has already voted.
![NS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBOGU1Q1E9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--e9a5216b0c43bd20be985b04a523f1dac5d94986/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/nathan_schneider.jpg%3F1442278666)
Nathan Schneider Sat 8 Jul 2023 1:10PM
@Brian Vaughan sorry that I missed part of the discussion. I did actually offer advice on how to make the proposal bylaws compliant when I shared the wiki page on how to do so, before this proposal was created. I don't want to be a huge stickler for the rules. The structure of this vote makes it a bit hard to evaluate according to the bylaws. But perhaps it will be unambiguous enough.
I don't mean to malign Brian's work here. I know from experience that running a contentious vote in this co-op is tricky!
![RJ](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMDJERHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--e2221914e0b167928790aa44be694b3f71710b58/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/spindlecrop.png)
rich jensen Sat 8 Jul 2023 4:59PM
@Brian Vaughan I think for the sake of clarity and process members should decide on whether or not to make an afirmative direction to defederate (suspend). My preference would include the post-action committee work detailed in #2. The current split of the defederate vote between two options muddies the call for action even though combined they represent almost 60% of the sentiments expressed.
Brian Vaughan Sat 8 Jul 2023 5:23PM
@richjensen3000 Two of the four options entail creation of a committee, so we probably should be thinking about a process for forming that committee, in a manner as compatible with established processes as possible. I'm not sure how we'll assess the results of the other vote, but of course it bears on the interpretation of the results of this vote.
Since we have had at least one vote to block, there's also the question of how to assess that. I'd thought it should be treated as a vote for #4, taking no action, but weighted as nine votes. That's based on my understanding of the way a block vote would normally be assessed.
Brian Vaughan Tue 11 Jul 2023 3:32AM
Loomio allows downloading the CSV of the votes, and it's calculating ranked choice votes by a simple point system. In this case, someone's first choice gets four points, their second gets three, and so on. So I think a block vote should count as 36 points for the option of no action. I won't be able to post my recalculation of the vote until well after the vote concludes, tomorrow evening my time. It would be a good idea for other people to try the math; I'm trying my best to be fair and honest, but I am obviously not disinterested.
![WM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBeWo1RGc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--ec251170deb014287b78142e80e998cfdfaa9d34/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/will.png)
Will Murphy Fri 7 Jul 2023 6:51PM
The character limit for vote comments is small, so I'm putting my full response here instead:
I don't think any poll which ties a judgment to a narrow course of action can represent an actionable proposal - it is closer to a political push poll. If I had to express my view in the structure of the choices here it would be:
We assume that Threads intends to be a threat to the Fediverse, but federation will actually benefit us more than it benefits them.
Having the walled gardens open up the gates through federation is, for me, the win condition for the Fediverse. It is the goal that drives my involvement here and the creation the Immers Space worker-owned cooperative that creates Fediverse software. For us to collectively build up another wall around that garden would be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Make no mistake - I believe that Facebook's intentions are bad and they will do everything in their power to federate in a way that draws and traps people into their network. However, I also believe this is an historic misstep by a leader prone to recent historic missteps and our best opportunity to bring vast numbers of people out from under Facebook's thumb.
What this really comes down to is a simple question: do you believe that the cooperative model is able to provide a social media experience that better meets the needs of people than the extractive model? If so, then it must follow that federation with threads will bring more people from them to us than vice versa. When they open up federation, they will greatly reduce the social cost of leaving their network as people will still be able to stay in touch with their existing friends, and I believe that cost - Facebook's current practice of holding your online connections hostage - is the primary barrier keeping people from moving en masse to the Fediverse.
Therefore, in order to pursue our vision of collective liberation, we must find a more nuanced approach than defederation that maximizes our ability to connect with the people that use Threads and show them what's possible outside the corporate social world while minimizing the harm to our membership (and there are real, material harms to consider here as Facebook enables fascists that incite vigilante violence against vulnerable groups). Part of the problem here is that the options Mastodon gives us for regulating contact with specific instances are woefully inadequate for this situation, but we must demand and/or build better ones in order to pursue our cooperative's vision.
![AW](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBejdOQ1E9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--3e0b736c5574a348e9f14ff3b254d97ace8e43d8/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/AaronWolf-smaller.png%3F1454520682)
Aaron Wolf Fri 7 Jul 2023 7:08PM
@Will Murphy Yes indeed, the best possibility is one in which we make the most accessible open door for people to leave Meta, we need to keep that goal in mind in all of this!
![RJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fdcdaa0e0b449a09b925d9e85be68811.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Rich Jensen Fri 7 Jul 2023 7:35PM
@Will Murphy "Facebook enables fascists..." - Meta enables fascists because Meta's business-model depends on the 'controversy' fascists create. Fascism/intolerance/white supremacy/State and Privatized Violence are inherent to their business model. I believe social.coop's value is in manifesting consensual space grounded in an alternative social logic to theirs. While one might make arguments about tone and style, I question whether there is any practical ideological difference between Meta and Gab. I think Social.coop should take a similar stance toward these two entities. Some people seem swayed by 'scale' and popularity and the unfortunate conditions that their friends and family members tolerate. Others are not swayed by these. I appreciate this discussion.
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmJnRHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--73dd84d5743960bd764099ee41a3d7100653f991/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/EduardoMercovich2020-redondo-color.png)
Eduardo Mercovich Sat 8 Jul 2023 7:19PM
@Rich Jensen
That's a great point. I don't see any fundamental difference between Fb/Meta and Gab in terms of pragmatic expressed value, that is, what they really do (as opposed to what the marketing people say).
Thanks for pointing that out. :)
![JG](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d79056cd20103755ce7faf969356a40c.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Jamie Gaehring Fri 7 Jul 2023 10:05PM
I appreciate the vibrant discussion that continues on this thread, but I think it is important to note (preferably at the top of this discussion) that FB/Meta/Threads has not implemented the ActivityPub standard to date, and they are incapable of joining the fediverse until they do. Tumblr said the same thing last November, apparently, but I don't see where they've actually followed through on anything. And there's an awful lot of hedging in Meta's announcement, imo, where they address the fediverse:
Soon, we are planning to make Threads compatible with ActivityPub
Source: https://about.fb.com/news/2023/07/introducing-threads-new-app-text-sharing/
I also appreciate the need for concern, but I don't see how this pact does anything proactive to protect social.coop usership, given what we currently know. Sure, people who join Threads could harrass people elsewhere in the fediverse, if and when Meta ever implements the protocol, but I don't see how that differs from any other server out there currently.
I can't even find the comment now, with how much this thread has blown up, but someone suggested early on drafting a list of terms or principles, sort of like a shared CoC I guess, that all servers would have to agree to before we federated with them. That's certainly a lot harder, but it's a positive assertion of values and would go a lot further toward protecting this space from all future threats, not just cause du jour of fear, uncertainty and doubt.
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmJnRHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--73dd84d5743960bd764099ee41a3d7100653f991/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/EduardoMercovich2020-redondo-color.png)
Eduardo Mercovich Sat 8 Jul 2023 7:14PM
@Jamie Gaehring
It is in https://cryptpad.fr/pad/#/2/pad/edit/5xxQZvxvjfAP2eQTYenLuWOZ/
![JG](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d79056cd20103755ce7faf969356a40c.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Jamie Gaehring Sun 9 Jul 2023 3:47AM
@Eduardo Mercovich oh nice! I really like the way that is shaping up, kudos to all who've been working on this!! 👏
![AS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBOWxsQ3c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--6d865b030883b48e2a5106a8574f04063ce5a5f6/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/Pasfoto.jpg%3F1587993329)
Arnold Schrijver Wed 19 Jul 2023 11:30AM
@Eduardo Mercovich I suggested the name "Friendliverse Act" in a comment to the pad :)
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmJnRHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--73dd84d5743960bd764099ee41a3d7100653f991/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/EduardoMercovich2020-redondo-color.png)
Eduardo Mercovich Thu 20 Jul 2023 9:03PM
@Arnold Schrijver
I love it! Also, that made me think on a game about diverse and fedi... But this issue of a common (p)act is different from this present thread, so let's open a new one.
Thanks a lot for giving it some time and love. :)
Kenneth Been Mon 10 Jul 2023 12:52PM
Maybe everyone is sick of talking about this but I've been trying to wrap my brain around this issue and I think I'm finally starting to get it! Please let me know if I've gotten anything wrong. (This is only about moderation, which is my main concern.)
If Server X has weak moderation and becomes a haven for bad actors, then we block the server because that is much easier than playing whack-a-mole with all the bad individuals.
The interesting thing is what happens next: all the nice people on Server X move to servers with stronger moderation. In this way, the fediverse naturally separates the bad actors out onto islands where they don't bother the rest of us.
The problem with Threads is that, because it's so massive, it's physically impossible for all the nice people to move to other servers. The sheer size of it breaks the fediverse's natural sorting function.
Thus, it seems we have two options: block and accept that Mastodon will continue to be a niche player, or federate and accept that we will be playing whack-a-mole for the foreseeable future.
Of those two options I prefer block, but then there is that other question of limit or suspend. I believe limit is sufficient to save us from playing whack-a-mole while still allowing us to connect with our friends, so that seems like a reasonable approach to me.
![RG](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBK0xZRVE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--7a581de88c41bcec9b40d2bb53a4dc7ab8efdb69/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/IMG_4141.CR2.jpg)
Robert Guthrie Wed 12 Jul 2023 4:06AM
@Brian Vaughan - that's a really complex process - and I don't understand it myself. I would consider it a measure of opinion rather than a binding vote. The rules need to be decided before the vote, not vaguely interpreted afterwards.
I think it's worth considering the feedback and coming up with a single proposal of action for people to vote upon.
In terms of meta discussion, (as a Loomio dev) I can see how it would be useful to reply to the the Outcome statement.. and for the outcome to feel like a milestone in the thread that new conversation comes from.
![MN](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNisvRVE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--43b6f4fee9884fc4fcf5268c24dbe1f565d51792/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBPZ2h3Ym1jNkZISmxjMmw2WlY5MGIxOXNhVzFwZEZzSGFRR0FhUUdBT2dwellYWmxjbnNIT2d4eGRXRnNhWFI1YVZVNkNuTjBjbWx3VkE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoidmFyaWF0aW9uIn19--27fed336878c6ac9959aa30801666fb68e51757f/goats.jpeg)
Matt Noyes Wed 12 Jul 2023 5:33AM
Very much agree with Robert Guthrie. It makes sense to have an up or down vote on a single proposal that integrates the concerns raised as much as possible.
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmJnRHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--73dd84d5743960bd764099ee41a3d7100653f991/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/EduardoMercovich2020-redondo-color.png)
Eduardo Mercovich Wed 12 Jul 2023 11:29AM
This would be the sociocratic way: all voices are integrated in a proposal that then each person objects (meaning "I see a possible danger") or consents (meaning "maybe it is not my ideal but it is good and safe enough to try").
If there are objections then that proposal needs to be worked more.
That proposal should include the measuring criteria for success (we can achieve B..., We evade Z...), maybe some of alarm (if X climbs over Y then we...) and a specified duration to maintain. At that time (if no alarm is triggered before), the results will be reviewed.
Once it has everyone's consent it is carried out by the relevant circle, working or operations group.
![N](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBeVV6RUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--486f70dac4c355cfb9a9823b546b7b0fa51c5743/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/nic.jpg)
Nic Wed 12 Jul 2023 10:13AM
@Robert Guthrie I think consensus to block Meta is demonstrable by this second vote. It's an increase from the previous vote of 51% support to block and sign the pact. A further vote empowers the time-rich (not working single mums, for e.g.) and given there's 56.4% supporting some form of defederation - including from the person whose block could bizarrely see us end up federating - I'm not sure another vote is needed other than to fine tune what exactly 'defederate' means (how long / what statement / what rules to justify / etc).
![RG](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBK0xZRVE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--7a581de88c41bcec9b40d2bb53a4dc7ab8efdb69/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/IMG_4141.CR2.jpg)
Robert Guthrie Wed 12 Jul 2023 8:08PM
@Nic - I have no opinion either way. I'm just saying it's the most confusing voting method I've ever seen. To me, this isn't a consensus outcome, it's still somewhere in the middle of the process.
Edit: And I think as a group you need to preserve/nurture your decision-making process, more than you need to come to an outcome on this decision, in the short term.
![N](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBeVV6RUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--486f70dac4c355cfb9a9823b546b7b0fa51c5743/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/nic.jpg)
Nic Wed 12 Jul 2023 11:23PM
@Robert Guthrie I guess it's a good opportunity to improve decision making as it's clearly rusty, many care about this, and maybe the urgency isn't what we thought, as Threads isn't trying to federate yet.
![RG](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBK0xZRVE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--7a581de88c41bcec9b40d2bb53a4dc7ab8efdb69/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/IMG_4141.CR2.jpg)
Robert Guthrie Thu 13 Jul 2023 3:32AM
@Nic - nice noticing on my language. I guess I'm only just stepping in - and don't fully consider myself part of the 'we' yet. My comment was based on my experience supporting groups using Loomio, rather than being a member of this group.
I'm a paying member but not much of a user so far. I don't yet have personal attachment to social.coop - but I'm really fascinated from the perspective of Loomio developer, wanting to better understand how you/we are using Loomio and how I can improve the experience from this seat.
![N](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBeVV6RUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--486f70dac4c355cfb9a9823b546b7b0fa51c5743/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/nic.jpg)
Nic Thu 13 Jul 2023 10:26AM
@Robert Guthrie it's really great you're engaging with how we're using it. I hope you don't mind me sharing some thoughts!
A discussion and two votes this long does become quite hard to navigate, while the infinite scroll means I can't always do text searches to find a name/phrase. I appreciate the right-hand menu is trying to address that but that itself is longer than my browser height and vanishes on phone. A small table of contents (vote 1/conclusion 1/vote 2/conclusion 2/general discussion) top left/right might work? On my phone I was trying to jump thru the comments to find whoever had done the block and it drove me a little crazy as the infinite scroll would get me so far then take me to someone's profile (always the same person!).
Another thing that stood out after I submitted the ranked vote was that two options displayed next to my vote weren't my top two. It took me while to realise there were numbers next to them indicating their rank, but my instinct is it would have sorted those results so my top two choices appeared top.
Also, as others note, we couldn't drop some items from our rank, so people gave points to positions they didn't support. Some of these then got multiplied by 9! That might be quite specific to us, but in this case if there had been some way for 'block' logic to be configured in the build of the vote, if someone blocks before the vote closes, it becomes clear to the community that this has reversed the current vote and more discussion/rethinking might be needed.
Django Wed 12 Jul 2023 1:11PM
@Brian Vaughan Not sure how to reply directly to the outcome, but this passage struck out:
So my reasoning is that a multiplier of nine would be applied to the point total for Option 4.
Since this was a ranked choice, meaning Option 4 couldn’t be unselected, applying a multiplier of 9 would place it as a default win because the top selected option is only worth 4 points.
Brian Vaughan Wed 12 Jul 2023 6:17PM
@django I have no idea how to score this. For one thing, Loomio's scoring method for a ranked choice vote doesn't resemble the details I've seen elsewhere for how ranked choice voting is supposed to work. It didn't allow for not voting for an option at all, for instance.
![F](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/dab5b647932861ddd309de8dd68bddad.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
fm2279 Wed 12 Jul 2023 1:29PM
It's possible I misunderstand, but it sure seems the weighting makes the poll worse than pointless.
![H](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNmw0RUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--e5cd986fa70e9c1530f3ed42f56e43e479c2b8d1/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/WlxUKzSZ_400x400.jpg)
Harris Wed 12 Jul 2023 6:57PM
@fm2279 I think this depends on your perspective. I'm not sure how much experience you have with coops in general, but some coops make decisions by full consensus (I've been part of a worker-coop like this) meaning that 100% of coop members need to be on board with a proposal or the status quo wins. This isn't practical for most large coops, but if that's your baseline, social.coop's modified version of that where you need 90% support for controversial decisions actually seems fairly lenient. (I do agree that RCV doesn't play super well with this system.)
Item removed
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmJnRHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--73dd84d5743960bd764099ee41a3d7100653f991/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/EduardoMercovich2020-redondo-color.png)
Eduardo Mercovich Wed 12 Jul 2023 8:51PM
This is why in Sociocracy the power to decide and execute is distributed in smaller circles that are closer in knowledge and action to where the discussed issues are.
Of course, there is also a general circle, with 2 full members of each circle. This is, they are not only representatives, but members of the general circle and other circle/s at the same time.
If here in social.coop a general assembly is too much people to decide with efficiency we can organize around circles.
But this is not to take this decision right now, only something to organize in our (possible) future...
![ES](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d09b0c40cfc33125691b128b3fbe539d.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Ed Summers @edsu Wed 12 Jul 2023 8:22PM
I think this type of split has already happened once in social.coop? It seems to me that the more cooperative instances there are in the fediverse the better, especially if they are federated in more than just a technical sense?
Dynamic Thu 13 Jul 2023 1:15AM
@Ed Summers
Wait, did social.coop and sunbeam.city used to be one group? Is there a written history of this somewhere?
![RJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fdcdaa0e0b449a09b925d9e85be68811.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Rich Jensen Wed 12 Jul 2023 8:31PM
Interesting notion. I wonder if "polities" could be split while "infrastructure" remained "commoned". In practical terms could this mean an experiment in common tech labor and revenues?
Persynally I am more motivated to defederate from Meta less because of a negative (threat) and more because of a positive affirmation: I want to be in community with people who want something other than the social logic Meta offers.
Feeling that erosion..
![ES](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d09b0c40cfc33125691b128b3fbe539d.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Ed Summers @edsu Fri 14 Jul 2023 6:47PM
It was a bit before my time but I believe that there was a disagreement early on that led some people to leave social.coop and head for other places like sunbeam? I'm not sure if a history of it lives on here in Loomio, and seem to remember the use of Loomio might have been part of the debate at the time? I might have totally just made that up, so take with a large boulder of salt.
![ES](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d09b0c40cfc33125691b128b3fbe539d.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Ed Summers @edsu Fri 14 Jul 2023 6:53PM
For clarity, how do people feel about another vote to be in line with the by-laws and try to be crystal clear (third time's the charm ☘️)?
In the event that Meta's Threads joins the Fediverse and begins using ActivityPub, social.coop will:
Defederate (suspend) from all Threads serversDo nothingBlock
Apologies for changing it up mid-stream, but looking at the proposal guidelines again I think it needs to be reformulated:
In the event that Meta's Threads joins the Fediverse by using the ActivityPub protocol SocialCoop's Mastodon instance at social.coop will defederate by suspending all relevant Meta host names.
While there are potentially many reasons to defederate from Threads, the primary motivation for this decision is to limit the degree to which data flows automatically between SocialCoop and Meta because of their track record of reselling user data and inability to promote cooperative social media conversations.
Agree
Abstain
Disagree
Block
Please see the rules for proposals for help understanding the significance of Block.
Brian Vaughan Fri 14 Jul 2023 7:15PM
@edsummers Looks reasonable. We should definitely get the more experienced parliamentarians to check in about the form of it.
![ES](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d09b0c40cfc33125691b128b3fbe539d.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Ed Summers @edsu Fri 14 Jul 2023 7:19PM
Paging @Nathan Schneider @Matt Noyes @Matthew Cropp @emi do
![MN](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNisvRVE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--43b6f4fee9884fc4fcf5268c24dbe1f565d51792/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBPZ2h3Ym1jNkZISmxjMmw2WlY5MGIxOXNhVzFwZEZzSGFRR0FhUUdBT2dwellYWmxjbnNIT2d4eGRXRnNhWFI1YVZVNkNuTjBjbWx3VkE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoidmFyaWF0aW9uIn19--27fed336878c6ac9959aa30801666fb68e51757f/goats.jpeg)
Matt Noyes Sat 15 Jul 2023 5:03PM
@Ed Summers I think it makes sense to do an up or down vote on the single proposal as you formulated it. It it fails, people can make new proposals (e.g. limit, wait and see, etc.)
![ES](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d09b0c40cfc33125691b128b3fbe539d.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Ed Summers @edsu Fri 14 Jul 2023 7:27PM
@Django It goes without saying that we can always make new collective decisions in the future. The goal of this proposal is to draw a line in the sand for now, and not keep punting into the future.
In re-reading the rules around proposals I needed to adjust it a bit. Let me know if you still have suggestions!
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmJnRHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--73dd84d5743960bd764099ee41a3d7100653f991/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/EduardoMercovich2020-redondo-color.png)
Eduardo Mercovich Fri 14 Jul 2023 7:38PM
Does it make sense to make them:
+ Defederate (suspend) from all Threads servers
+ Limit (option added)
+ Do nothing
+ Block
Sorry if it was explained before and I lost it, but what's the difference between block and defederate?
Thanks...
![ES](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d09b0c40cfc33125691b128b3fbe539d.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Ed Summers @edsu Fri 14 Jul 2023 7:55PM
@Eduardo Mercovich thanks for the reminder to look at the Proposal rules again. I've made some revisions to my original proposal. See if you still have questions about them?
Dynamic Fri 14 Jul 2023 8:18PM
@Eduardo Mercovich
I think it's hard to get coherent data when we offer three distinct options. The last two times we did this, it really seemed like people were reading into the poll results what they wanted to see. I also would really really like to have a supermajority to decide how to move forward with this thing. That might not be possible, but I firmly disagree with settling for a plurality.
![DZ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/56f62586a43f2c54757a631ffe75746f.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Dmitri Z. Fri 14 Jul 2023 8:22PM
yeah, I think the 'Do Nothing' poll item doesn't quite represent the stance. It should be more like "Wait until they break our ToS and THEN defederate"
![ES](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d09b0c40cfc33125691b128b3fbe539d.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Ed Summers @edsu Fri 14 Jul 2023 8:34PM
@Dmitri Z. I have since updated the proposed text. Do you still have the same concern about how the proposal is phrased?
![DZ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/56f62586a43f2c54757a631ffe75746f.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Dmitri Z. Sat 15 Jul 2023 5:07PM
@Ed Summers thank you for following up / checking! I can't actually tell where the updated proposal text is -- this thread is way too dense!
![ES](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d09b0c40cfc33125691b128b3fbe539d.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Ed Summers @edsu Sat 15 Jul 2023 5:48PM
@Dmitri Z. Yeah it is almost impossible because parts of the thread get collapsed. I think this link should take you to it, if you look just underneath the now struck through text? https://www.loomio.com/d/AZcJK6y2/discussion-support-the-anti-meta-fedi-pact/315
Brian Vaughan Fri 14 Jul 2023 8:44PM
The problem remains that the bylaws assume a straight agree or disagree vote on a single option.
![SM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNEJVRUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--a0c0e982b389149714c01ae0d69b9e53131f2357/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/me%202022.jpeg)
Scott McGerik Fri 14 Jul 2023 9:15PM
@Brian VaughanI agree. I liked @Ed Summers original proposal as amended by @Django. I see multiple options before us.
Dynamic Sat 15 Jul 2023 6:21PM
Been pondering this more. I think we should separate the decision of whether to Suspend / defederate from Threads.net from the question of whether to Limit the instance. I think it is likely we could achieve broad consensus on Limit-level moderation, while leaving open the option of full defederation as a future proposal.
I'm not personally happy with the idea of stopping at Limit, and might leave social.coop if that's what we're stuck with, but I think it would be foolish for us not to take positive action to moderate Threads.net.
(these thoughts partly inspired by the thread about Sociocracy here: https://social.coop/@nicol/110711778899925711)
Dynamic Sat 15 Jul 2023 6:35PM
With that in mind, how about a proposal worded something like this:
Proposal: Social.coop will moderate Threads.net at a minimum of the Limit level.
As described on the Mastodon documentation page on moderation tools (https://docs.joinmastodon.org/admin/moderation/), limiting an instance is "Equivalent to limiting all past and future accounts from the server. Previously known as “silencing”."
That is to say, that it is an instance-level moderation tool that has the effect that:
A limited account is hidden to all other users on that instance, except for its followers. All of the content is still there, and it can still be found via search, mentions, and following, but the content is invisible publicly.
At this moment, limit does not affect federation. A locally limited account is not limited automatically on other servers. Account limitations are reversible.
This proposal does not preclude future proposals to Suspend (defederate from) Threads.net entirely.
Proposal options
Agree - Social.coop should Limit federation with Threads.net
Disagree - Social.coop should not Limit federation with Threads.net
Block (? - I'm unclear on how to best structure a proposal to allow for blocking)
Brian Vaughan Sat 15 Jul 2023 7:24PM
@dynamic I think this is a good statement of the question.
When you create a poll, there's a template for polls for Social.Coop that uses Agree, Disagree, and Block. So I think that would cover it.
![ES](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d09b0c40cfc33125691b128b3fbe539d.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Ed Summers @edsu Sat 15 Jul 2023 7:29PM
@Brian Vaughan @Dynamic I like the options expressed this way too with the template. But I find the language of "Proposal: Social.coop will moderate Threads.net at a minimum of the Limit level." to be confusing. Who will decide what level will be implemented if people agree?
Dynamic Sat 15 Jul 2023 7:34PM
@Ed Summers
How about "Proposal: if Social.coop federates with Threads.net, Threads.net will be moderated at the 'Limit' level"?
Brian Vaughan Sat 15 Jul 2023 9:15PM
@dynamic I think it was mentioned that it's the Community Working Group (CWG) that normally determines which instances are limited or suspended. So (assuming that's the appropriate body), maybe put in something about how this does not restrict the CWG from taking other moderation actions if it finds them to be necessary?
Dynamic Sat 15 Jul 2023 9:18PM
@Brian Vaughan
We could add that. Is this suggestion a substitute for the edit I suggested, or in addition to?
Brian Vaughan Sat 15 Jul 2023 9:31PM
@dynamic In addition to. I'm basically thinking it's more precise than saying "at least limit", and leaves follow up questions to normal processes.
Dynamic Sun 16 Jul 2023 1:28AM
@Brian Vaughan
I just read through the proposal guidelines and bylaws regarding governance, and I now want to check in about whether anyone has checked in with the working groups about these proposals.
Before proceeding, explore the operations docs to see if there is a working group relevant to your idea. If there is, be sure to contact them to discuss it. Perhaps it is something they can implement on their own, without a further proposal. But even if you do proceed, make sure you've at least consulted with the relevant working group.
I'm... really hazy about the process here.
Brian Vaughan Sun 16 Jul 2023 3:18AM
@dynamic It looks like the CWG is the right group, and I did see someone mention that the CWG members were waiting to see how the vote played out, and from the members in the minutes, I know several of them have participated in this discussion. It seems like now's the time to check in with them, as the CWG, so I'm tagging @flancian @edumerco @mattnoyes
![ES](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d09b0c40cfc33125691b128b3fbe539d.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Ed Summers @edsu Sun 16 Jul 2023 1:02PM
@Brian Vaughan I wonder if the proposal could say defederate (either suspend or limit) and leave the decision of which to do to the CWG?
![MN](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNisvRVE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--43b6f4fee9884fc4fcf5268c24dbe1f565d51792/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBPZ2h3Ym1jNkZISmxjMmw2WlY5MGIxOXNhVzFwZEZzSGFRR0FhUUdBT2dwellYWmxjbnNIT2d4eGRXRnNhWFI1YVZVNkNuTjBjbWx3VkE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoidmFyaWF0aW9uIn19--27fed336878c6ac9959aa30801666fb68e51757f/goats.jpeg)
Matt Noyes Sun 16 Jul 2023 4:59PM
@Brian Vaughan The current members of the CWG Ops Team are: @Flancian @Sam Whited @emi do and me. I think this proposal doesn't have to go to the CWG first, especially since there has already been a lot of discussion. IMO it is also better not to leave it to the CWG Ops Team to decide whether to suspend or limit Threads. Maybe other folks on the ops team have a different take?
Dynamic Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:36PM
@Matt Noyes
I agree that it should not be up to CWG to decide the moderation level for Threads.net.
![ES](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d09b0c40cfc33125691b128b3fbe539d.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Ed Summers @edsu Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:46PM
@Dynamic I personally think the vote should be to suspend and not limit Threads. It will prevent data from social.coop from flowing to Meta via ActivityPub.
Dynamic Sun 16 Jul 2023 8:11PM
@Ed Summers, I strongly support full defederation from Threads.net, but I think that we are much more likely to achieve consensus on Limiting them, and that it would be extremely unfortunate if we keep dithering on which of these to do and end up taking no action at all.
Defederation can (and IMO should) be a separate proposal. I tried to make this very clear in the language of the proposal, but please let me know if there's anything that would make this clearer.
Poll Created Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:57PM
Proposal: moderate Threads.net at a minimum of Limit level Closed Sat 22 Jul 2023 7:00PM
The proposal to moderate Threads.net at a minimum of Limit level has passed. The result is that until and unless the community decides otherwise, the Community Working Group should moderate Threads.net at the Limit level.
Vote tally:
74% of votes were in support of the proposal
18% of votes opposed the proposal
7% abstained
98 of our 375 Loomio members participated in the poll.
This decision does not rule out a future proposal to Suspend (defederate from) Threads.net entirely.
Proposal: if Social.coop federates with Threads.net, the Community Working Group (CWG) should moderate Threads.net at the Limit level, while remaining empowered to apply higher levels of moderation to Threads.net or Threads.net users as needed (and as they would for other instances).
As described on the Mastodon documentation page on moderation tools (https://docs.joinmastodon.org/admin/moderation/), limiting an instance is "Equivalent to limiting all past and future accounts from the server. Previously known as 'silencing'."
That is to say, that it is an instance-level moderation tool that has the effect that:
A limited account is hidden to all other users on that instance, except for its followers. All of the content is still there, and it can still be found via search, mentions, and following, but the content is invisible publicly.
At this moment, limit does not affect federation. A locally limited account is not limited automatically on other servers. Account limitations are reversible.
The motivation for this proposal is that, while previous polls and proposals have indicated that defederating from Threads.net remains contested, there is more likely to be wide support for Limiting Threads.net, which would still enable Social.coop members to follow Threads.net users if they wish.
This proposal does not preclude future proposals to Suspend (fully defederate from) Threads.net, which I believe is better addressed as a separate question.
Results
Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |
---|---|---|---|---|
|
Agree | 74.5% | 73 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Abstain | 7.1% | 7 |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Disagree | 18.4% | 18 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Block | 0.0% | 0 | ||
Undecided | 0% | 277 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
98 of 375 people have participated (26%)
Dynamic
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
We may not all agree on whether to defederate from Threads.net, but proactively Limiting a very large instance that is expected to have its own moderation problems seems like a common sense measure.
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmJnRHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--73dd84d5743960bd764099ee41a3d7100653f991/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/EduardoMercovich2020-redondo-color.png)
Eduardo Mercovich
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
As I expressed before, I am full on to cut every possible link with Facebook/Meta/Threads because of their documented bad behavior and it's impact for our society.This is, for ethical and pragmatic reasons. If this is the 1st level we can agree, I'm on for it.
![BJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/673b3af90381f26882b7e7283ab137fa.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Bo Jeanes
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
I like this approach because it essentially is a choice to not amplify Threads content. That feels appropriate starting point to me.
Eliot Lash
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
I feel like it's too early to preemptively limit this instance. I agree meta is terrible but they haven't done anything yet in this instance, and there are people on Threads I want to be able to interact with from my social.coop account. I say, keep an eye on them, but limiting them now seems a bit extreme. We can always do so later if needed. If people want to block the instance now, they can already do that individually.
Item removed
![DS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmkvQ1E9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--24d20eded3592a486eb65a3926474fb8a85604ad/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/strypey-firestaff.jpeg%3F1583373801)
Danyl Strype Thu 20 Jul 2023 7:16AM
@Eliot Lash
there are people on Threads I want to be able to interact with from my social.coop account.
FWIW a Limit action doesn't prevent you from doing that. This is the point of using Limit instead of Suspend (full de-federation).
![SJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc1214d5e009b136822daa982ee675cf.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Scott Jenson
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
Same argument as previously stated. I don't trust Facebook, we have to keep an eye on them, they may indeed do something wrong. However, there is potential for good here, however naive, and it makes send to see what happens and once it's clear, THEN limit them. I don't see the value of "performative anger".
Item removed
![RH](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5af75bf63b2c6cba8096f0da0bfcfbb2.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Randy Hall Wed 19 Jul 2023 2:32PM
@Scott JensonJenson I don't view it as performative anger as much as well-deserved caution. To assume good intentions from a corporate entity that has, to this point, been proven to act in the sole interests of its owners rather than it's users, is a rather naive and doe-eyed way to approach their new service.
![SJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc1214d5e009b136822daa982ee675cf.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Scott Jenson Wed 19 Jul 2023 8:31PM
@Randy Hall I agree with you that caution is very warranted. But this proposal is action. There is a big difference. I think we should be very cautious and trigger ready for action. My point is only that it makes more sense (and gives us more options) to wait.
![JDC](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBME5ERUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--6b5b8ded761be61d540f647d590917dfdc32ee43/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/justin-r-c.png)
Justin du Coeur
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
Seems like an appropriate level of caution to start with. We can move towards a stricter or looser policy from there, as we get more evidence of how Threads behaves itself.
![RJ](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fdcdaa0e0b449a09b925d9e85be68811.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Rich Jensen
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
Seems to be the prepratory step to voting to SUSPEND, ie.. defederate.
![DS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmkvQ1E9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--24d20eded3592a486eb65a3926474fb8a85604ad/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/strypey-firestaff.jpeg%3F1583373801)
Danyl Strype Thu 20 Jul 2023 7:17AM
@Rich Jensen
Seems to be the prepratory step to voting to SUSPEND, ie.. defederate.
Not necessarily. Those supporting Suspend may find that in practice, Limit is sufficient to address their concerns.
![DR](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/4b7f309f547f8098b35336b569b604ab.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Denman Rooke
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
I agree with limiting Threads.net as it allows users to individually decide how they interact with the instance while keeping it at arms length. I don't trust Meta as a company, but I don't want to fully defederate from the instance completely as I'd like to connect with friends & family and then try and convince them to move instance :)
![BS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNjl1RUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--f25b0e2ed860920f85ae8710811480d5b60c6f09/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/9b8ef827f54b2c72.jpeg)
Brecht Savelkoul
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
I think limiting is the least we could do to prevent being flooded with abuse the moment Threads starts federating, while also giving individual members the chance to interact with people they trust.
Limiting is also a decision that's easily reversible. So if Meta surprises us and actually turns out to be a well-run good citizen of the fediverse, then we can lift this measure accordingly. I highly doubt that will happen, but it might be good to have the option just in case.
![H](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNmw0RUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--e5cd986fa70e9c1530f3ed42f56e43e479c2b8d1/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/WlxUKzSZ_400x400.jpg)
Harris
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
There seems to be a lot of antipathy toward Threads on our server and I think this is a reasonable way to address that, at least as an initial action.
![NS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBOGU1Q1E9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--e9a5216b0c43bd20be985b04a523f1dac5d94986/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/nathan_schneider.jpg%3F1442278666)
Nathan Schneider
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
I think this is a very reasonable compromise. As someone opposed to fully defederating (I want to be able to follow people on Threads while staying on Social.coop), I hope that this approach helps satisfy those with concerns about welcoming Meta to the fediverse uncritically.
![ES](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d09b0c40cfc33125691b128b3fbe539d.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Ed Summers @edsu
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
I think a good follow on to this poll, if it passes, is whether we should suspend Threads if it comes online in the Fediverse.
![JN](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBeUU0RUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--57be35e10986ee80485a26b7a648951dcea336e1/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/jnf.bw.avatar.jpg)
Joshua Neds-Fox [@[email protected]]
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
I'm strongly in favor of any proposal that approaches recognizing Threads.net as a threat actor. If this is the closest we can get, I'm for it.
![MP](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBODM3Q1E9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--833d0200714239066630999c6f2ea8a7cc10445c/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/20171101_152738.jpg%3F1623703372)
Michael Potter
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
I feel the question is whether to defederate or not, or possibly a choice of whether to federate with Threads at all, and I think this should be done in the same manner as other cases.
![J](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/67cf115f9ae7d523d9483293b7768ece.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Jay
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
I think limiting is wise, especially given a lot of people’s apprehension about this. I’m glad it won’t be a full suspend.
Can we explicitly add that removing the limit is not off the table?
Dynamic Wed 19 Jul 2023 10:45AM
@Jay
In principle, I don't suppose anything is off the table, but my intention behind the proposal (and the assumption that I think many have made in their votes) is that the limit would be a standing policy. I understand if this causes you to change your vote.
Buddy
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
Helping meet quorum
Shauna Gordon-McKeon
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
Limiting is my preferred solution, as I would like to follow any friends of mine who are on Threads but also respect/share the desire to minimize Threads' impact on the Fediverse.
mike_hales
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
This is way over my head.
![SJK](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a3772d029f133be5b9d3ca2d04f9161b.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Stephanie Jo Kent
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
Caution is warranted. Do good first then we can see!
![DC](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBOGdyQ3c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--4887357af7be5499339c0d9d2d13528d4fcfff56/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/768-1024.jpg%3F1591111676)
Derek Caelin
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
I appreciate the efforts by people on this thread to find a solution that works for a large group of people. I could live with this scenario, but I prefer not to.
It comes back to the harm we are seeking to avoid. If we think Threads users will be bad actors, limiting (or defederation) is a good policy. But if we think the harm is that Meta will extend surveillance to our users, limiting (or defederation) doesn't address that problem.
![DS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmkvQ1E9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--24d20eded3592a486eb65a3926474fb8a85604ad/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/strypey-firestaff.jpeg%3F1583373801)
Danyl Strype Thu 20 Jul 2023 7:21AM
@Derek Caelin
if we think the harm is that Meta will extend surveillance to our users
As [Gargron explained in his blog post on the subject](https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2023/07/what-to-know-about-threads/), federation between our server and any other server does nothing to make surveillance of members of our server any easier.
![SE](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMHNPQ3c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--2e551b4c87a6675666693343ba2136d46434bc87/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/SteveEdiger.jpg%3F1580626308)
Steve Ediger (ChiCommons)
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
Imin favor of blocking completely. However, lanking consensus on that, I'm willing to support limiting it.
![CW](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/41a6caeab1cdcebab20ee5e640f34349.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Casey Watts
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
This is worse than fully allowing or disallowing folks to connect with Threads users - it’ll add confusion and not really achieve the same outcomes either
Flancian
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
I personally currently disagree with limiting the instance before it exists, but I also think it's a sensible proposal and much better than defederating outright; so I'm happy to effect this as a member of the CWG group if it passes.
![RH](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5af75bf63b2c6cba8096f0da0bfcfbb2.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Randy Hall Wed 19 Jul 2023 2:42PM
@Flancian@Flanciani I would say that it strikes a reasonable balance at the outset. It's not outright blocking their new service, but recognizes that the corporate entity has a long and verified track record of disregard for their users, and possible (probable?) strategies to "embrace-extend-extinguish" ActivityPub are things to be on the lookout for. Doing nothing and assuming good intentions on the part of Meta is foolish to say the least, and taking a reactionary stance later will be more difficult, in my opinion.
![RH](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5af75bf63b2c6cba8096f0da0bfcfbb2.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Randy Hall
Wed 19 Jul 2023 2:29PM
I am in favor of choice, so long as the safety of our coop members is valued above convenience. I have zero problem defederating Threads preemptively, but so long as that option will be able to be considered in the future (ie it's not off the table with passage of this proposal), I will support this proposal now as it provides the best possible (for now) stance on Meta and their entrance into the Fediverse.
![KL](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/0b30bb077975c9945ac9eceb65166dea.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Konrad Lawson
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
I don’t think the threat necessitates preemptive action.
Ivan
Wed 19 Jul 2023 4:36PM
It seems like a good middle ground and would hopefully protect against abuse until Meta shows their true colors.
More importantly this would allow some choice for users. User choice is good.
![TR](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/6b862df3f900637ac05f2cc77f940548.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Tod Robbins
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
This seems like a very reasonable approach to me.
![DC](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBOGdyQ3c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--4887357af7be5499339c0d9d2d13528d4fcfff56/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/768-1024.jpg%3F1591111676)
Derek Caelin
Wed 19 Jul 2023 5:32PM
I've revised my response to "agree" - it's not my preference, but I could live with this setup. We should be clear that our policy could be revised (either towards defederation, or toward opening) based on the behaviors of Threads and users.
![CW](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f41042345c39bfad52b36a0d2d713cfd.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Colin Williams
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
I dislike Meta, but I have yet to see data showing that Threads content is so problematic as to justify preemptively limiting before they even federate If that data exists, Limit seems like a great first step. Barring that data, I disagree with taking action. Instead, Threads federation should be closely monitored if/when it happens.
Additionally, Threads joining the fediverse could be a boon, making it accessible to significantly more people and locking in ActivityPub as the protocol.
![SM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNEJVRUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--a0c0e982b389149714c01ae0d69b9e53131f2357/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/me%202022.jpeg)
Scott McGerik
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
I don't follow the Federated timeline but that's because I don't have time to keep up with it. Perhaps limiting is the best option for those who follow the Federated timeline but don't want to see posts from Threads.
![A](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNnVuRVE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--746a74e1a3a96ad89aa8093f928add62808da036/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/Me%20Square%20Small.jpg)
Aaron
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
Due to the network effects of social networks, I believe that even limiting Threads increases the value of Threads, which is not something I want to be a part of in any way. I would rather something operated by Meta be completely off in its own virtual dystopia, than with an opt-in bridge to go over there. Also I believe that Meta will do any and everything to harvest any type of data that crosses over to Threads, as this is typical for the company which has no regard for user privacy.
![DS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmkvQ1E9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--24d20eded3592a486eb65a3926474fb8a85604ad/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/strypey-firestaff.jpeg%3F1583373801)
Danyl Strype
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
This seems like a sensible compromise. Once Chains actually starts federating over AP, we'll be able to gather some data on how that's affected social.coop members, which will then inform any further moderation actions relating to it.
Dynamic Thu 20 Jul 2023 9:28AM
@Danyl Strype
Chains?
![DS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmkvQ1E9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--24d20eded3592a486eb65a3926474fb8a85604ad/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/strypey-firestaff.jpeg%3F1583373801)
Danyl Strype Thu 20 Jul 2023 11:15AM
@Dynamic
I refuse to call it "Threads". Meta calling their server that is an attempt to hijack and privatise a generic term, widely used in social media. "Chains" is a more accurate description of their new DataFarm.
Dynamic Thu 20 Jul 2023 11:29AM
@Danyl Strype
Got it. I have similar reasons for always adding the "dot net" to my references to them.
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBdzRqQ2c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--88a36505e15e229054843e2bb073eb0f0cea9e44/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/avatar.jpg%3F1517959830)
Erik Moeller
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
I think "Limit" accomplishes a reasonable compromise: it lets users follow trusted, good actors on Threads, while mitigating the risk of bad actors harming our community.
![BS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBd2NLQ2c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--7d88e7abc0c004ffe1ab764cc8ef8695f9c58427/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/NightHackingEdit.jpg%3F1474862005)
Billy Smith
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
FB operates as a "Surveillance Capitalism" organisation as their main Premise-For-Existence.
The reason that i joined the Fediverse was to avoid that system.
(Yes, i know about the Snowden disclosures, so everything on the internet is surveilled anyway, but it's too useful a tool to completely discard because of that.)
FB have been complicit in oppression and genocide.
The Generative AI needing data for content generation.
It's another Dumpster Fire waiting for the spark to set it ablaze.
Dynamic Fri 21 Jul 2023 10:27AM
@Billy Smith
Can you elaborate on why this translates as a down-vote? (I have a guess, but I don't want to make assumptions.)
![BS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBd2NLQ2c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--7d88e7abc0c004ffe1ab764cc8ef8695f9c58427/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/NightHackingEdit.jpg%3F1474862005)
Billy Smith Sat 22 Jul 2023 9:36AM
@Dynamic
I would like a full block.
While this approach is a compromise, it won't work.
FB never negotiate in good faith, and we'd be fools for believing them if they tried, as they have consistently and continuously lied about what they were doing.
I am not a "dumb fuck".
![BS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBd2NLQ2c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--7d88e7abc0c004ffe1ab764cc8ef8695f9c58427/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/NightHackingEdit.jpg%3F1474862005)
Billy Smith Sat 22 Jul 2023 9:37AM
@Dynamic
Yes, i have relatives that use FB, as it was the simplest way for them to do things, but they are stuck due to the network effect.
![J](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c964b50e710372ed6bce087695a11b33.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
JohnKuti
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
As I understand it, "limit" does not remove any functionality from individual users. It's just a denial of collective support for the limited instance.
![WM](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/988e14ed4a04a77a92ada95ba9b53da6.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
William Murphy
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
I don't think that continuing to freely send our data to Facebook (as federation is not affected) while limiting our ability to interact with people using threads (as any posts or replies in threads from people you don't already follow) moves us in the right direction
![JO](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/0f7d647c9b5fa290331ee33eb65394cd.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Jere Odell
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
Limits seem reasonable and adjustable.
![O](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f8411662ffbc88aecdd85bad48260891.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Éamonn O'Brien-Strain
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
The bad effects of full federation are speculative and may not come to pass. So I propose we should start off with full federation, but be on standby to change to "Limit" if we see some bad effects.
As I understand it, limiting would only prevent Threads content from appearing in the federated and hashtag timelines.
Louis Allaway
Sat 22 Jul 2023 12:27AM
This seems a good method forward as an instance, with the eventual goal that we could if they were good residents (remember we don’t have their algorithm) we could delimit.
I don’t think blocking threads is in the instances interests, fundementally the fediverse is going to struggle to grow without any traditional backing as a social media/microblogging instance which people often turn to for discussion and reading news etc
![MN](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNisvRVE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--43b6f4fee9884fc4fcf5268c24dbe1f565d51792/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBPZ2h3Ym1jNkZISmxjMmw2WlY5MGIxOXNhVzFwZEZzSGFRR0FhUUdBT2dwellYWmxjbnNIT2d4eGRXRnNhWFI1YVZVNkNuTjBjbWx3VkE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoidmFyaWF0aW9uIn19--27fed336878c6ac9959aa30801666fb68e51757f/goats.jpeg)
Matt Noyes
Sun 16 Jul 2023 7:59PM
I'm not against this, but think it misses the point, which is not to limit the ability to connect with individuals users of Threads (there could be some great people there) but to limit the ability of Threads to federate, to isolate Threads as much as possible as a platform.
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmJnRHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--73dd84d5743960bd764099ee41a3d7100653f991/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/EduardoMercovich2020-redondo-color.png)
Eduardo Mercovich Sun 16 Jul 2023 9:56PM
On other, slower less frantic angle, I was wondering on why it this issue about our relationship with Threads from Facebook/Meta (Fb/Mt) is taking so much debate.
And remembered that many times and in varied contexts, when I saw people discussing without end the issue it is not really about what they are discussing, but because of something prior that it is not clear, or expressed, or shared.
In this case, I believe that we are mixing different aspects of the same issue, and discussing on all them without pointing to each one. It is like discussing a treatment without clarifying the diagnostic first. The most probable outcome is not getting to any clear agreement about what to do (this is, the treatment).
So let's take a couple steps back in order to try to see farther..
A working hypothesis for this conundrum is that we have -at least- 2 dimensions we are talking about:
the ethical,
the pragmatic.
The ethical dimension is based on the fact that Fb/Mt had demonstrated along many years that it plays only for itself and without any valid or agreed rule/s or care except maximizing the money it can get away with. This implies that, if Fb/Mt was a person, it could only be described as a sociopath. Not only no one want's to have to deal with such a person, but in this case it is much worst since it is a multi billion powerful corporation so it is extra difficult to make it behave well. And since we (social.coop) are a group about collaboration and common good, then the ethical dimension calls for a total cut of any relationship, just as what was done with Gab. Simple, clear, and (hopefully) done.
The pragmatic dimension is way more complicated. It does include many points that have already been pointed in the previous discussions. Some are potentially very positive (like people knowing the real Fediverse) and others very negative (as a huge influx of unmoderated posts from people with an explicit opposite view of our values at Social.Coop, exposing personal information that will be appropriated and sold without consent, etc.).
While I have my own opinion about the probabilities and relative weights of both positive and negative sides, this is completely irrelevant here and will leave my personal opinions out in order to help to work on this meta-discussion.
The important thing we need to see is that both views calls for completely different ways of dealing with them:
as a common good oriented, commons creating infrastructure cooperative the ethical one is crystal clear, we cannot tolerate Fb/Mt as we didn't tolerate Gab. No discussion, or we have to discuss Gab and fediblock again.
as a communication service provider for our community and Fediverse promoter cooperative the pragmatic one calls for an evaluation of all the points (both pros and cons) regarding their potential/estimated impact in our mission and a careful weighting of each and the whole pack before taking a decision.
To make this even funnier, we have also a time-bound decision: Thread is here, but still doesn't federate. But it does create a time limit that it is coming shorter by the day.
These are only some half baked thoughts, but there is some very experienced people in this wonderful community that I'm hopeful can use this idea to help to redirect or reframe the whole discussion in a positive, more constructive way so we can evaluate proposals and consent one.
WDYT?
Warmest regards...
![DC](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBOGdyQ3c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--4887357af7be5499339c0d9d2d13528d4fcfff56/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/768-1024.jpg%3F1591111676)
Derek Caelin Wed 19 Jul 2023 1:23PM
@Eduardo Mercovich
as a common good oriented, commons creating infrastructure cooperative the ethical one is crystal clear, we cannot tolerate Fb/Mt as we didn't tolerate Gab. No discussion, or we have to discuss Gab and fediblock again.
I think this is an interesting but imperfect analogy. Gab was a bad actor because its users were largely bad actors and it represented them. Meta is a bad actor, but more because of its extractive practices than because of its userbase.
So, does the proposed solution address the harm? Defederation solved the Gab problem because people wanted to avoid neonazis showing up in their feed. I'm not certain that defederation would solve the Meta problem, because many of us post publically.
Dynamic Wed 19 Jul 2023 2:06PM
@Derek Caelin
It strikes me as a bit strange to say that defederation doesn't solve the surveillance problem "because many of us post publically." Some of us don't always post publicly, and that should be taken into account. I, for example, have started to use followers-only posts in many of my threads in order to decrease the chance of my content being harvested for generative AI.
Dynamic Wed 19 Jul 2023 2:06PM
That said, as I've been asking more questions about how the protocol works, some of my initial concerns have been allayed. In particular, if the responses to this thread (https://infosec.exchange/@varx/110738362126288399) are correct, then followers-only posts by idle accounts that have left automatic following turned on will not be laid bare to Threads.net the moment that federation occurs, which has been my major pragmatic concern.
Dynamic Wed 19 Jul 2023 2:19PM
In terms of surveillance capitalism, it seems that the posts that we need to be concerned about are those that meet all of the following considerations:
Followers only
Posted after the moment of federation with Threads.net
By users who haven't individually blocked Threads.net
By users who wouldn't want their data slurped up by Threads.net
-
By a user who either
1) doesn't screen follows at all
2) doesn't screen follows closely enough to notice what domain the follow request is coming from, or
3) slipped up one time and accidentally approved a follow-request from someone on Threads.net even if they intended not to
That might be a vanishingly small number of posts, although it's hard to know for sure. Point #3 on the final major bullet seems like the biggest concern to me (again, from a surveillance capitalism standpoint; there are other concerns). To the extent that this is a concern, I think that a technological solution (if it is administratively possible) would be if there were a way that the admins could automatically set up Threads.net as "blocked" by every individual user, so that the federated experience would be opt-in rather than opt-out.
![EM](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBMmJnRHc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--73dd84d5743960bd764099ee41a3d7100653f991/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJY0c1bkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--76fbfb4cf6c235059586b0c7c347dd0d77445cbe/EduardoMercovich2020-redondo-color.png)
Eduardo Mercovich Wed 19 Jul 2023 3:51PM
@Derek Caelin
Meta is a bad actor, but more because of its extractive practices than because of its userbase.
I wish it would be only that. But, sorry, not only... it's business of selling people info is based on engagement, and that is very much (although not only) based on hate. So their business thrives on hate. They welcome nazis, fascists and all kind of extremists because it is good for it's business. Of course, not all of it's users are like Gab, but they allow them to thrive there.
This has been proven once and again in the last 10 or 15 years, so it doesn't make sense to discuss it again here. So Meta is a bad actor for many (and very) serious reasons, not only because of their extractive practices.
Based on that fact and that it's values happen to be (very much) outside my range of consent, is that I put it in the same bucket as Gab.
PD: edited typo.
![DC](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBOGdyQ3c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--4887357af7be5499339c0d9d2d13528d4fcfff56/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/768-1024.jpg%3F1591111676)
Derek Caelin Wed 19 Jul 2023 3:57PM
@Dynamic
Some of us don't always post publicly, and that should be taken into account. I, for example, have started to use followers-only posts in many of my threads in order to decrease the chance of my content being harvested for generative AI.
That's a fair point.
chrispomeroyhale Sat 22 Jul 2023 6:51AM
@Eduardo Mercovich Mastodon is supposedly GDPR compliant. If it is GDPR compliant, Meta would not be able to sell your information. Additionally, because of how GDPR works, Meta's solution to geoblock Thread outside the US still requires them to enforce GDPR for EU+UK citizens in the US (called "extraterritorial scope") since it's tied to Instagram which does business outside the US.
Thread or not, I personally have some GDPR concerns with Mastodon.
Further reading on GDRP and Mastodon: https://github.com/clening/MastodonPrivacyGuide
![MS](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNGF1RVE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--0ce519cee3a812334981c26eaf9523248fbb3979/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/purple_sun.jpg)
Matt S - @matts Mon 24 Jul 2023 2:26AM
@Dynamic
To the extent that this is a concern, I think that a technological solution (if it is administratively possible) would be if there were a way that the admins could automatically set up Threads.net as "blocked" by every individual user, so that the federated experience would be opt-in rather than opt-out.
Does the Limit feature accomplish this?
Dynamic Mon 24 Jul 2023 12:29PM
@Matt S - matts
The documentation on https://docs.joinmastodon.org/admin/moderation/ is very unclear on this point, stating only that Limit does not affect federation.
![C](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBeStmRUE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--7bc2853a184710b804b06cbc7cf088b01baba541/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lJYW5CbkJqb0dSVlE2RkhKbGMybDZaVjkwYjE5c2FXMXBkRnNIYVFHQWFRR0FPZ3B6WVhabGNuc0hPZ3h4ZFdGc2FYUjVhVlU2Q25OMGNtbHdWQT09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--bee53b50eefebbfaf3427852775dd64daaceca76/deepfried_1627738653234.jpg)
Calix Sat 30 Dec 2023 11:20PM
@Derek Caelin I think that this analogy to Gab is perfect, there is a huge number of outspoken bigots on both Facebook and Threads.
Dynamic Wed 19 Jul 2023 2:48PM
@Eduardo Mercovich
Adding to your "practical" list there's a second tier question about what kind of users we as social.coop want to serve. I think a big part of what is making this process so painful is that our membership currently includes users with strongly contrasting expectations of what services social.coop should provide. I think there are more than two sets of categories of expectations, but two important categories are:
Users who see social.coop and the parts of the fediverse that are aligned with our values as a community existing outside of the corporate internet, and who see social.coop as having a responsibility to maintaining the integrity of that community
Users who see social.coop as a communication tool that---while itself being non-corporate---should be as inclusive or exclusive as the individual user wishes, including the option of communicating with people on the corporate internet.
Up until now, the corporate internet has had no presence to speak of on Activity Pub, and both of these sets of users could easily be served with no problems. As the landscape is changing, and we are deciding how to proceed, there is an implicit statement to one or the other of these groups of users that "We will no longer provide the service you are looking for. Go elsewhere." That's bound to create some feelings of hurt.
Dynamic Wed 19 Jul 2023 2:55PM
@Eduardo Mercovich
As we make decisions about how to moderate the corporate internet, to federate or not, to limit or not, we are also making choices about what kinds of users social.coop will attract. If we federate, many of our anti-federation people will leave and we will also become more inviting to future prospective members who want broad reach, including people who love the idea of using the fediverse to keep up with family and acquaintances. If we defederate, many of our pro-federation people will leave, and we will also become more inviting to future prospective members who are looking for shelter from the storm of the corporate internet.
Either way, the future composition of social.coop membership changes.
Dynamic Wed 19 Jul 2023 3:07PM
@Eduardo Mercovich
This is a little bit harsh to say, but I think it's important: Because our decision on the Threads.net question is expected to change the composition of our community, it should also be expected to change the results of future decisions that we make as a community.
This is the biggest reason why I would seriously consider leaving if we decide to handle surveillance capitalist instances the same way that we handle regular instances. Others might have similar feelings in the opposite direction.
Dynamic Wed 19 Jul 2023 3:10PM
@Eduardo Mercovich
The thinking I provide above is a major motivator for the question I raised about whether we could be two instances or communities (https://www.loomio.com/d/m4hc80Tn/could-we-be-two-instances-communities-). If such a thing were possible, it might be a path forward that would allow us to serve the maximum number of our current members (although it might be that members trying to take a principled stand that social.coop should sever any possible ties with Meta would find this outcome unsatisfying and might leave anyway).
![DC](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBOGdyQ3c9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--4887357af7be5499339c0d9d2d13528d4fcfff56/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBTU0lKYW5CbFp3WTZCa1ZVT2hSeVpYTnBlbVZmZEc5ZmJHbHRhWFJiQjJrQmdHa0JnRG9LYzJGMlpYSjdCem9NY1hWaGJHbDBlV2xWT2dwemRISnBjRlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--e579049eb7f20fc1070cc24f3215f2949d184302/768-1024.jpg%3F1591111676)
Derek Caelin Wed 19 Jul 2023 5:21PM
@Dynamic this is a very important point. We appear to be at a crossroads.
Dynamic Wed 19 Jul 2023 9:54PM
@Derek Caelin
Thank you for this feedback.
(I think you are one of the first social.coop people that I followed, back when I was on cybre.space, and it has been interesting to me seeing how you and I have come down in somewhat different places on this issue.)
![ES](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d09b0c40cfc33125691b128b3fbe539d.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Ed Summers @edsu Thu 20 Jul 2023 2:33PM
Dynamic Thu 20 Jul 2023 4:29PM
@Ed Summers
That divide reflects different visions for the Fediverse’s future. One involves embracing Threads to bootstrap the network’s stagnant growth.
Ok, ok, hands up everyone whose reason for supporting federation with Threads.net is to "bootstrap the network's stagnant growth".
Flancian Sat 30 Dec 2023 5:22PM
Hi all!
I'm the Community Working Group oncall this week. A member reached out wondering why/how Social.coop ended up showing up as signatory in:
And I came to this thread to try to understand the associated outcomes. As of now I'm a bit confused (partly because of how threaded Loomio discussion works) :) So I'd like to begin with a pulsecheck, if you are willing:
As a participant in this discussion or a member of Social.coop: are you surprised that Social.coop now shows up as signatory?
Do you have any further thoughts on this matter?
I also started an informal poll over at https://social.coop/@flancian/111670500999654865 -- of course that can be voted on by anyone, though, so it should be taken more as a pulse check for both the Social.coop community and our social graphs (where it is most likely to be seen).
Flancian Sat 30 Dec 2023 5:24PM
Furthermore: my current understanding is that https://www.loomio.com/d/AZcJK6y2/discussion-support-the-anti-meta-fedi-pact/344 passed/was adopted, and because of that the CWG is supposed to limit Threads -- but that does not seem to be the same as 'fully defederating with them'. So in that sense this outcome seems to contradict our showing up as signatories?
![S](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/933716b495e88105cbc2ddca1e3f3430.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Sieva Tue 2 Jan 2024 7:32AM
@Flancian I am surprised to see social.coop on the list with “fedipact” status. This status would mean complete defederation, and limiting is not that.
Flancian Tue 9 Jan 2024 7:29PM
@Sieva yes, I agree; this has come up more recently as reported and discussed in the Matrix open room (https://matrix.to/#/#SocialCoop:matrix.org).
We probably want to align and either un-sign or commit to defederating?
![BMH](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c765934363224852356e0d9a992b3a23.png?d=retro&r=pg&s=128)
Benjamin Mako Hill Thu 11 Jan 2024 2:41PM
@Flancian Since committing to defederating seems unlikely in the short term, it seems we should ask them to unsign. Who is in contact with the pact folks? Will somebody volunteer to reach out?
![MN](/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBNisvRVE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--43b6f4fee9884fc4fcf5268c24dbe1f565d51792/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDRG9MWm05eWJXRjBPZ2h3Ym1jNkZISmxjMmw2WlY5MGIxOXNhVzFwZEZzSGFRR0FhUUdBT2dwellYWmxjbnNIT2d4eGRXRnNhWFI1YVZVNkNuTjBjbWx3VkE9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoidmFyaWF0aW9uIn19--27fed336878c6ac9959aa30801666fb68e51757f/goats.jpeg)
Matt Noyes Sat 30 Dec 2023 5:38PM
Seems like we should just notify the maintainers of those lists that we voted to limit threads.net (and have done so, limited it, that is).
Brian Vaughan Sat 30 Dec 2023 5:56PM
That's my understanding. As I recall, we would have voted on supporting the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact as a follow-up question, if and only if we voted to pre-emptively block Threads.
Scott McGerik · Tue 20 Jun 2023 12:56AM
Two principles that I see in the sense check are:
Opposition to entities that condone the spread of anti-democratic ideologies
Opposition to the spread of dangerous misinformation (dangerous needs to be defined)