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?

    • lml@remy.city
      2·
      1 year ago

      The problem is that if I want to communicate with Meta users, then my content gets copied onto Meta’s servers, just because of how the fediverse works. Everything is a local copy first, then gets federated. So if I reply to someone who is a Meta user, in order for them to see my comment it must get copied to Meta servers. The only way to stop this is to defederate with them (which means the server you are on would not send anything to Meta servers).

      • ch1cken@kbin.social
        11·
        1 year ago

        The problem is that if I want to communicate with Meta users, then my content gets copied onto Meta’s servers

        whats the issue with this

    • stoneparchment
      2·
      1 year ago

      Are you familiar with the embrace, extend, extinguish process referenced by the top commenter? Just wondering if this comment is made with understanding of that process.

      Personally, I don’t want Meta’s money and army of paid developers to be able to make “surface level” improvements that incentivize non-technical users to join their instance, while hiding an increasingly hostile and profit-driven framework underneath.

      Here’s a blog post passed around a lot today on the issue. I’m not totally sold one way or another, so if you have insight I’d love to learn more.