Meta (Facebook) discourse
I expect that #qoto here will federate with the #Meta servers, as it federates with just about everyone short of CSA or active DoS attacks. And that's fine with me.
On the other hand, I'm very sympathetic to those who decide otherwise, and are unwilling to federate with the Meta servers on the basis that Meta has a history of being evil, and are almost certainly up to something undesirable. So their not-federating is also fine with me.
One of the great things about the #fediverse is that different servers have different policies! There's no need to talk everyone else into being the same...
🇳🇱
Meta (Facebook) discourse
To let eqch user decide for themselves if they wqnt their qccoubt seen by meta or not. Users can block the whole server when it goes live.
Meta (Facebook) discourse
@freemo @lucifargundam @ceoln Perfect. Do we have any announcement capabilities so one does not miss it? I was not aware that the meta swamp is close to opening.
On second thought: if one does not want ones posts imported to meta when they open, would it be possible to pre-block?
@admitsWrongIfProven @freemo @lucifargundam @ceoln
YES PLEASE TO *PRE-BLOCK* IDEA -
[Meta (Facebook) discourse]
Can we do that now so we users don't have to do anything more / don't forget. Feels best having given ok now to do it...
... Also a tutorial how to block after welcome but for some of use that's too late! Administration could do this in a few clicks as and when much easier probably... thoughts?
If you want the server admins to protect you from certain undesirable instances, #qoto isn't really that. One of the main reasons I'm here is that the admin's policy is very clearly to federate with virtually everyone, and leave it to individual users to block anybody they please.
Other, even most other, server admins have more curatorial policies, where they do some of that work for their users, at least as long as their users agree with the admin opinions about what other servers should be blocked. :)
That's one nice thing about the fediverse to me; you can choose a server that has an admin policy that sounds like what you want, rather than there being a single terms of service that controls the whole thing.
@ceoln @freeschool @freemo @lucifargundam Hmm.
The stance of not curating the instance is a good one, but i would see reason for an exception here, at least in so far that it might be better to opt-in for meta involvement.
Defederating or blocking them generally would be wrong as long as they don't do anything wrong, but there is a thing that is different: they are not a part of the fediverse in spirit, since they come out with NDAs. They are not open as we are. Add this to their for-profit nature, and i think it does warrant thinking about how to treat meta.
@admitsWrongIfProven @ceoln @freeschool @lucifargundam
On which grounds of our existing server rules should we block? If there isnt one what rules do you propose that would warrant us blocking?
@freemo @ceoln @freeschool @lucifargundam I think you misunderstand - i am not in favor of blocking without concrete cause.
See:
> Defederating or blocking them generally would be wrong as long as they don't do anything wrong
What i meant was that it was reasonable to think about this, and possibly favor an opt-in approach - purely theoretical, since i think we don't have the mechanism.
Sorry that was for freeschool, or anyone asking for a pre-block
@freemo No reason to apologize. Just sad that we probably don't have the fine grained control here that would be appropriate to keep meta on a short leash without compromising our values.
@admitsWrongIfProven what tools would you want?
@freemo From what i have understood, they will play nice and at some point use their power when they get enough users.
So every user interacting should have made the conscious decision to do so.
Opt-in could be a preset serverblock on the user level, with a prominent message to ask "do you want to interact with meta?" which removes it if answered with yes. (Just formulating what would be nice to have)
I mean clearly, we cannot defederate/block on a server level without compromising our values, but most users will be unaware of what is going on. A choice must be made, and whatever happens then is our own doing.
Obviously, the choice should not be mandated top down. But waiting for everyone to get involved will only mean meta can do what they want, since there is not enough awareness.
So i guess we lack some common decision mechanism for informed consent... waaaait a minute, like in politics too!
@admitsWrongIfProven so block by default, opt-in by choice.. yea i could support that
@admitsWrongIfProven No servers on the fediverse that I know of have that capability yet,
@freemo I mean viewed outside of meta-related stuff, being able to add something to a users blocklist would be creepy. Unethical, if you will.
@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven Agree with "block by default, opt-in by choice..." for users not being aware / users getting surprised one day (even those who know still too late to click after)...
And then generally how unethical they are by their own existance, practices (past and present history.)
Just they are not in line with a lot / not supporters of many parts of freedom / caring.
@freeschool @freemo In the end, i guess we will lack the means to implement any actually good solution. Fedi wasn't built on the assumption that there would be such an ambiguous problem - it's block the trolls and accept the well moderated instances. Ancient evil trying to corrupt the userbase slowly wasn't in the design specs, right?
@freemo I thought so, but let me guess - we lack the ability in at least two ways, right?