sh.itjust.works Main Community

7716 readers

1 users here now

Home of the sh.itjust.works instance.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

TheDude@sh.itjust.works

manifex@sh.itjust.works

biela@sh.itjust.works

imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works

Potential of a Meta ActivityPub client (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Whooping_Seal@sh.itjust.works to c/main@sh.itjust.works

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I am assuming many of you have heard about the potential of Meta creating an ActivityPub enabled client (TheVerge, PCMag etc. have made articles). I was just wondering what people's thoughts are on this, and if it came down to it should instances in the fediverse defederate from it considering it could be a case of Embrace, extend, extinguish.

There's a DefederateMeta magazine at !DefederateMeta@fedia.io if you're interested, which includes an anti-meta pact on cryptpad with the responses viewable on a seperate website if you care to see which instance admins have agreed.

I'm just curious what my fellow sh.it.heads think of this development in the fediverse, any input is appreciated!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] spark947@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's because you can start building profiles of people from metadata. I agree that the privacy issues with the fediverse are kind of part of it, and you shouldn't put anything on here you aren't willing people to see publicly because the content get's spread to so many different servers. But I would get why on a trust level, facebook would have less currently than instance admins.

[–] MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Nothing would stop them from creating a profile from just scraping the fediverse without even joining it. Them being a part of the fediverse or not (including whether or not they get banned from certain instances) matters very little if not at all for this matter.