So, @epilanthanomai and the #SignsAndCodes family, I figure we should have a conversation about this and out-in-the-open is best. This place was originally created in response to Meta's (then Facebook's) anti-sex-work and, briefly, anti-queer policies. Now it seems that Meta is looking into Fediverse-related projects, and has been meeting with major instance admins under NDA. If/when Meta arrives here, what sould our policy towards them be? All thoughts and opinions welcome, public or private.

@roadriverrail Personally I'd rather not have my content from here feeding their shitty site. I've just finally required follow requests, and I'll be denying requests from them.

I'm unclear whether we should instance-block them. I'm initially inclined slightly against it. We block for scraping and abuse. IMO Meta is both, but if a user here wants to talk to a relative who's only on IG, do I want to refuse them that because of my anti-corporate politics? Meh, sounds like a week case.

@epilanthanomai This is precisely why I felt an overall conversation was in order. We don't really know very much about what's gone down and what might happen soon, but it's good for everyone to share the shape of their feelings, if they have them. I am genuinely on the fence about some potential things.

What I'm *not* on the fence about is the prospect that the mega-instance admins may have had a secret meeting where they spoke for people they don't represent.

@roadriverrail Yeah, the rumormill seems to suggest that these admins were courted to betray us all and because they agreed to talk they must be guilty. I hear a core concern that's spot-on, and a bunch of loud takes that I find less credible. Personally I want to wait and see what they all actually do.

That said, I would really appreciate statements from those admins wrt boundaries, and I imagine they can do that without divulging the content of the meeting.