livus
If you like international and eclectic news, come and join me at @worldwithoutus (Link for Lemmy = worldwithoutus).
I’ve also started helping out at @worldnews, (Link for Lemmy = worldnews), @movies, (Lemmy = movies), and am a ghost at @13thfloor (Lemmy = 13th Floor).
- 0 Posts
- 10 Comments
@VirtualOdour the point of me sharing that article was just to try to put a human dimension on genocide for that callous person above.
Meta have been implicated in at least two genocides now and openly obstructed the International Criminal Court in their investigation of one of them. I think people are only pointing that out to show how evil Meta are.
But if you want to know what specifically they will do to ActivityPub, the other article I shared has more direct relevance: How to kill a decentralized network.
There’s also some great irony in the fact that they’re talking about genocide while advocating for using the nuclear option to block Facebook despite the massive number of innocent casualties it’ll cause.
Sir/Madame, not being able to see some online content is nothing at all like having your family members murdered in real life.
Read A Death Sentence For My Father sometime and you will see.
I think this article, How to kill a decentralized network, gives one of the best explanations, because it uses a real world example of how it has happened in the past.
we’re not going to see them here. We can’t. That hasn’t been built.
It has been partially built insofar as Kbin and Mbin can see Mastodon posts here and Mastodon interacts with us. Wouldn’t surprise me if Lemmy eventually gets some of that functionality too.
If Meta starts to EEE ActivityPub that will affect all of us.
@qjkxbmwvz I think the main fear is Embrace Extend Extinguish.
It’s not about interacting with Threadworms, it’s about sleepwalking into a situation where Meta is changing the very nature of ActivityPub itself.
And by “cheap” we mean literally free in some cases.
Mali’s government was letting Freenom manage it. So it was a free domain name like .tk, with all the problems that entails with misuse.
Tagging you @favrion because no one seems to have mentioned this, and I think it answers your question.
Your topic’s a false premise. First of all it’s totally valid to criticize someone for something that couldn’t apply in the current situation, because what’s being criticized is the decisions and attitudes that their actions reveal.
Meta’s refusal to moderate a website they control after multiple warnings that it was being used to incite genocide speaks to their institutional values, accountability, and culture.
By contrast, plenty of instance owners have shown responsibility, accountability, and good faith about admins moderating the instances they control.
Lol that’s condescending, and it’s also a bit offputting. I come here to bloviate thank you very much. :)
The thing is though, I’m not part of the wider conversation about facebook above. You glommed onto a very simple, very specific point I made to someone else about the human impact of social media incitements to genocide.
What Meta did to the ICC isn’t even related to my above link (which is about the Tigray genocide, not the Myanmar genocide). But it’s well-documented, and I’m not interested in rehashing it here.