The exchange is about Meta’s upcoming ActivityPub-enabled network Threads. Meta is calling for a meeting, his response is priceless!

  • nromdotcom@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    A 45 minute “round table” with multiple rando masto instance admins? That doesn’t sound like enough time for the table to get very round.

    It sounds more like 5 minutes introduction, 30 minute presentation by Meta, 10 minutes Q&A. But oops our presentation ran just a bit long, and I really do have a hard stop at noon so we really only have about 5 minutes for questions thanks for all of the valuable feedback we’ll be sure to circle back offline.

    • SavvyWolf@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “We here at Meta take people’s privacy very seriously and are committed to protecting our users. Unfortunately at this time we can’t discuss what measures we’ve put in place.”

  • Flax@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Idm meta joining tbh. At least this means your friends can be on something and you won’t be obligated to use a meta app to talk to them, peer pressure, etc

    • llama@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your first mistake is setting a minimum expectation for a Meta product. They’ve not promised it will do any of that and they already have you thinking it will based on nothing but rumor.

    • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Until they pull an iOS sms situation, where non-iOS applications are missing their “exclusive features” and go as far as to break conversations through incompatibility, and then your friends are badgering you to “just join the 21st century and get an iphone already,” but with Meta-branded apps. There’s no way in hell Meta will play nicely with anything outside their ecosystem.

  • madjo@geddit.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    On the one hand I can totally understand this reaction by Kev, on the other hand, by completely locking off all discussions like this, means that there’s no way to change things for the better.

    Granted, it’s Meta, they’re not to be trusted, but still, a discussion, if one has the time, wouldn’t be too bad an idea.

    • nameless_prole@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it would be incredibly naive and foolish to believe Meta has any kind of pure motives for this.

      One of the biggest corporations in the world reaching out to its competitor to try to get them to talk “off the record” about “confidential details”… Sounds like a pretty blatant scheme to get them to reveal confidential details about their competitor’s product.

      Or maybe Meta has broken with decades of its own conduct, and several centuries of capitalism, in order to reach out in good faith to their competitor. LOL.

  • Flax@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    If Meta wants to make an app that is competitive with other fediverse apps and is actually good, I don’t see the problem. If they want to harm other fediverse instances then I do. How much harm could they do to the fediverse? Would they then block off all other apps when their app is the biggest essentially?

    • KeavesSharpi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      they could make their own custom version of the fediverse, slowly diverging from the core open source version, then push the actual fediverse into obscurity, the same way Google Chat killed XMPP. Imagine a new Meta-controlled “fediverse” where you can only have an instance if you use their code and their rules.

        • longshaden@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          this was an excellent article. I’m old enough to remember being impacted by these events.

          I’m not in Munich, but I remember trying to embrace OpenOffice, and telling my wife how pissed off I was that Microsoft wasn’t following it’s own open source document standard.

          I remember Google killing XMPP, and there’s also the more recent examples of what Facebook has done to WhatApp, Instagram, and the other potential competitors that got buried.

    • 108beads@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      “If Meta wants…” My concern is that the only conceivable motivation Meta could have for investing money in such a project is making more money. If, in the process, Meta destroys the eco-structure of the Fediverse, so much the better—less competition, more money for them.

      • llama@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s exactly it and there’s no reason to pretend otherwise. Meta is a financial instrument to turn money into more money. The only reason Meta would engage with any third party is to make their commercial products more attractive to advertisers. Play with Meta and before you know if they’ll be writing all the rules about how you’re allowed to run your instance.

  • Takatakatakatakatak@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    What an absolute legend. Also, I do so solemnly swear that any instance caught federating with meta is going straight in my hosts file.

    You have been warned.