Server indexes of places for newcomers to join can be instrumental for Fediverse adoption. However, sudden rule changes can leave some admins feeling pressure to change policies in order to remain listed.
Server indexes of places for newcomers to join can be instrumental for Fediverse adoption. However, sudden rule changes can leave some admins feeling pressure to change policies in order to remain listed.
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.
The thing is your article blames meta for not doing something that would be impossible on lemmy by design. Meta didn’t act to silence messages calling for violence but there is no mechanism to do this top down on lemmy only by defederating instances or individual communities/instance admin banning posts. Exactly the same thing could happen here, if the user base ever got large enough.
@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.
Let’s stick to one topic for now.
If lemmy was as popular as Facebook then exactly the same thing would have happened. Lemmy is designed not to have the top down control which the article says Facebook should have used to hide posts.
You can’t blame Facebook for something if you support an alternative where it wouldn’t even be possible to avoid that thing.
If you’re willing to acknowledge that we can move on and you can try and say in simple terms what you think meta did to obstruct the ICC, try to be accurate and concise.
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.
It’s a comparison. By definition they’re not the same thing but there are similarities; you’re doing something that affects 100% of the userbase because you have an issue with 2% of them. Like Israel fighting Hamas and the entire Gaza population having to suffer because of it.
It’s a really inappropriate comparison tho.