19
Should the Fediverse welcome its new surveillance-capitalism overlords? Opinions differ!
(infosec.exchange)
this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2023
19 points (88.0% liked)
Fediverse
17534 readers
25 users here now
A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.
Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".
Getting started on Fediverse;
- What is the fediverse?
- Fediverse Platforms
- How to run your own community
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
@Kryostar @thenexusofprivacy @fediverse@lemmy.ml @fediverse@kbin.social
If you're not on a Meta instance, then let users on such an instance care about themselves.
If your instance is affected by discrimination, hate, violence, abuse, immoral moderation due to how another instance is run, then that instance can be defederated soon enough, just like now. No need to do that pre-emptively because an instance is run by Meta or by whomever.
@sibrosan Or, if an instance that's about to launch has a long history of discrimination, hate, violance, abuse, and contributions to genocide, you can announce your intention to defederate from them even before they launch.
Like I said in the post, opinions differ!
@Kryostar @fediverse@lemmy.ml @fediverse@kbin.social
@thenexusofprivacy @Kryostar @fediverse@lemmy.ml @fediverse@kbin.social
"you can announce your intention to defederate from them even before they launch."
I would want my instance to abide by its stated server rules, without exceptions either way. That may mean defederation of an instance if it doesn't ensure my instance's users are protected from transgressions by its users, but not defederation because of an expectation it won't. In case it proves necessary, defederation can be effected quickly enough.
@sibrosan Like I say, opinions differ.
Why do you think so many trans and queer people -- who are very likely to be directly impacted by transgressions of the rules -- come to a different conclusion and advocate preemptively blocking?
See the "We're here, we're queer" section of https://privacy.thenexus.today/should-the-fediverse-welcome-surveillance-capitalism/#were-here-were-queer for more on that perspective.
@Kryostar @fediverse@lemmy.ml @fediverse@kbin.social
@thenexusofprivacy @Kryostar @fediverse@lemmy.ml @fediverse@kbin.social
"Like I say, opinions differ"
Apparently. I prefer unbiased application of the server rules my instance advertises, as I based my decision to join it on those.
Other Mastodon users may prefer a certain bias, that's all right too.
@sibrosan The server rules on your server explicitly prohibit transphobia.
So why do you see enforcing the rules by not federating with another server that's got a long history of transphobia as "bias"?
@Kryostar @fediverse@lemmy.ml @fediverse@kbin.social
@thenexusofprivacy @Kryostar @fediverse@lemmy.ml @fediverse@kbin.social
> So why do you see enforcing the rules by not federating with another server that's got a long history of transphobia as "bias" <
IMO the rules should be enforced when they get broken, not preemptively due to an expectation they would.
No Meta server exists that uses ActivityPub, so if they set up one, it won't have a "long history of transphobia".
And when that server turns out to not behave, it can be defederated quickly enough.
@sibrosan Thanks for the explanation!
@Kryostar @fediverse@lemmy.ml @fediverse@kbin.social