Meta
This NDA stuff is showing who Meta consider to be the shot-callers within this network, and also which of those shot-callers recognise themselves as such. I thought this was an *open* network; Why are these discussions happening behind closed doors?
If Meta have no intention of embrace, extend, extinguishing this place they'd tell us what they're making. If the shot-callers here care about the health and diversity of the network they'd not allow themselves or anyone to become shot-callers
Meta
If Meta can't show the basic curtsey of entering this network with the open-ness and transparency people expect from open networks, how can we expect them to ever be trustworthy or acting in good-faith? *Especially* given their proven track record of already being *actively dangerous* at a global scale in a humanities sense.
We have no obligation to sit at the table with these people. Get them blocked, and get them blocked before they even arrive
Meta
It's not lost on me that with the information we have so-far on who these meeting invitations from Meta were extended to, they have been extended exclusively to admins of large and growth-orientated instances and not a single one to instances ran by prominently queer people, or Black people, or People of Colour etc. Isn't that funny*??
*predictable
Meta
It says a lot, however we are talking about big tech, here they are hardly honest, trustworthy or ethical. I assume NDA is non disclosure agreement, so what exactly have they been discussing.
Rather worrying but as stated predictable, I think their intention may very well be Extend, Embrace and Extinguish, as to them the users here are full, metrics etc and therefore can generate huge amounts of data that can be sold for profit which is their sole modus operandi.
This is a worrying development, we have got to keep Meta off fedi, otherwise we will lose everything we are building and why we are building it.
terminology clarification
@zleap @Shrigglepuss NDA is a nondisclosure pact, yes