/kbin meta

2 readers

1 users here now

Magazine dedicated to discussions about the kbin itself. Provide feedback, ask questions, suggest improvements, and engage in conversations related to the platform organization, policies, features, and community dynamics. ---- * Roadmap 2023 * m/kbinDevlog * m/kbinDesign

founded 2 years ago

Is kbin.social anti-corporation? Should it be? (kbin.social)

submitted 2 years ago by shepherd@kbin.social to c/kbinMeta@kbin.social

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm seeing discussions on other instances about how a "federated" corporate instance should be handled, i.e. Meta, or really any major company.

What would kbin.social's stance be towards federating/defederating with a Meta instance?

Or what should that stance be?

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

[–] Kaldo@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I've seen this article circulating and I think it's a really good cautionary tale. If meta arrives here in full force it's completely going to take over the fediverse, they are already splitting the community as it is.

https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html

Note that this is different subject from being anti-corporate. I don't think there's an issue if companies start booting their instances and creating communities for their games or content, whether its EA, Bioware, CDPR or something like pcgamer, LTT, gamersnexus, etc. They want the PR and visibility on a social network but their goal probably wouldn't be take over the AP, and could add some validity and get other bigger names to be active here. That is assuming we want growth at all.

[–] 50gp@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I wonder if theres any way to pre emptively stop them from taking over activitypubs development and direction

[–] parrot-party@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

They can't do a hostile take over of ActivityPub. The trap is that they would come in with open arms and an army of developers. ActivityPub maintainers would at first welcome the help and guidance from such an experienced team. Then, once they have the community hooked, they spring the trap and start making changes that are actively hostile to small sites. The community flocks to the big site because everything works better there, and the dream is dead.

Now maybe it'll never happen, but it's hard to tell. Even if Facebook joined with the best intentions, that doesn't mean the project isn't going to be taken over by a power hungry manager later who could still activate the trap card.

[–] TechyShishy@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

Right, because that's what Embrace Extend Extinguish is.

[–] Ragnell@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is why the big threat is Meta, because they are a tech company. I think any instances spun up by Silicon Valley should be blocked preemptively, but other corpora can have a probationary period.

[–] Kichae@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago

Honestly, it Meta spun up a Mastodon site to host Meta employees and just have a corporate presence, the way they might have a Twitter account, that wouldn't be an issue at all.

The issue is that they're arriving as platform developers, not social participants. And that's their business.

We should be super suspicious of people showing up to sell the Fediverse, because you can't profit off of community. Community costs money, not generates it. To generate money, you need to exploit people, and exploitation is anti-social. Anti-community.