Christina WarrenSo the new Instagram text thing is reported to have ActivityPub support and instead of being happy at all the new labor that could potentially be coming to the standard, Mastodon people are now actively encouraging instances to not federate with any of that stuff. K.
Look, instance admins can block whatever they want for any reason they want. It hurts your users but do you. And I'm not trying to argue that Facebook isn't a fucked up company. But actively working to discourage extremely skilled participants (and love them for hate them, FB engineers are VERY good) from contributing or associating with your open source protocol or community is just peak stupidity for people who claim in the same breath to want to remake and reset the social web.
Thom Holwerda@film_girl Facebook: *enables Trump, Rohingya genocide, etc.*
Mastodon admins: "Some of us would like to not associate with this company."
US tech media: "Won't someone think of the poor Facebook engineers!"
I fucking hate this timeline.
@thomholwerda so don't federate them if you want -- fine! But then don't bitch and moan that no one uses your protocol or services.
@film_girl I think the point that a lot of - especially Americans, for some reason - don't seem to get is that a lot of people would rather have a smaller social network but with fewer horrible people than a bigger social network but with way more horrible people.
We let the corporations try social media, and they all fucked up. Every single one of them. Why are so many of you so desperate to keep repeating the same mistakes?
@thomholwerda I think that is completely and totally fine. But then don't call it an open standard, one, if you're going to gatekeep and pitch fits over anyone who uses it (and this goes for all OSS btw, it's open or it isn’t, things. Things like the ethical source movement are not open and I wish they'd at least lean into that), and two, if you want it small, don't complain when it is small.
@thomholwerda I have zero problem with any administrator or user choosing who they want to federate with or not. I have zero problem with anyone wanting to have smaller, more controlled, more moderated social networks. But I do have a problem with preaching the virtues of openness (but then controlling who can use something and how) and bitching that the rest of the world won't come over to your worldview, when you're deliberately trying to keep people out.
censored for “transphobia”@film_girl
There are multiple virtues in play here. Consider that I boycott #Microsoft for 50+ reasons. Let’s say MS wants to do something good & they make changes so 5 of the reasons I boycott them go away. Well I’m still boycotting MS for 45+ other reasons. FB, #Cloudflare, MS, #Amazon, Twitter, etc, are socially detrimental & abuse the data they get their hands on to the full extent possible.
@koherecoWatchdog @thomholwerda and that’s perfectly fine, imho. Your money, your time, your attention. My friend Kashmir tried to do those boycotts and it is sadly impossible for most of us no matter what we want to do, but that’s a position that I find reasonable. What I don’t find reasonable is complaining that no one will come to your party but then denying entry to every guest who shows up. Esp. if you threw a tantrum last week when learning someone else was having a party on the same day
@film_girl
This is how social contracts work. There are rules of engagement. Those rules are designed to create & maintain an open free world. If I design a party under the framework of a social contract, I want as many party goers to join the cause as possible.
But strings attached: the guests must follow the rules or get bounced. If we allow them to break the rules of the social contract then we weaken & facilitate acts against our own movement.
@thomholwerda
@film_girl @thomholwerda I think this idea is analogoous to what @Vincarsi says¹ about tolerating the intolerant. This might be another case where a #socialContract is being mistaken for a #moralStandard.
① https://freeradical.zone/@Vincarsi@mastodon.social/110357410508810531
Jude (@[email protected])
@[email protected] @[email protected] I saw someone make a good point about that actually. If instead of considering tolerance a moral standard, we considered it as a social contract, the paradox disappears. Because then, when someone is intolerant, they are breaking the terms of the social contract and therefore are no longer protected by it. So being intolerant of intolerance is the logical course rather than a conundrum