Are you seeing a massive uptick in pro meta propaganda as well?

Years ago, back before it was totally shitty, someone on reddit posted a gigantic, comprehensive, well-sourced list of all the horrible shit Zuck / Meta have done over the years.

It's unfortunate that long lists of damning facts can't seem to move the needle very much. People don't seem to care unless directly impacted.

I hate seeing Meta dig its tentacles in. Thanks for posting this.

Sometimes people have different opinions on tech stuff so I'm hesitant to block people for opinions I disagree with...

But I also saw some posts that you're talking about OP. You linked one up thread that had come to mind. That user's post history is super suspect. With people pointing out their shill-like qualities 6 months ago in response to Meta propaganda links.

Can you give examples of what you're referring to as propaganda? I haven't seen anything but people bitching about Threads.

I think it is part of a long term strategy.

They saw all the negative feedback that was given when the first announcement came and there were a lot of users saying its not so bad or that we should give them a chance then.

Eventually everything became quiet and things moved on now there is a steady rise of pro Meta comments again and this time it will lead to a less violent reaction because it has already happened once before.

Rinse and repeat until they become the norm.

I assume my not noticing any meta shills is due to them being downvoted to hell. If so, excellent work everyone on keeping their propaganda in check!

Seems like this aren't the only bad stuff they did

I haven't seen it but I also want Meta and everything to do with it to die in a fire, so I kind of wish I had so I could express that feeling to the shills. Mark Zuckerberg has singlehandedly made the world a significantly worse place. It'd almost be impressive if it wasn't so depressing.

I don't like Meta at all, trying to cut out Meta as much as possible myself.

Meta's going to do what Meta's going to do. They don't have the good intentions for the Fediverse at heart. They will use it and the concept of federation to seek their ends, and when it's no longer useful to them they will cut it off.

I'll leave it up to server operators and users to decide. While I think it's nice that Meta gives the Fediverse attention, I also the Fediverse is better off generally not hooking into Meta's feed. If your server is part of Fedipact then it's fair game to report disinformation biased towards Meta.

I browse new on the regular and haven’t noticed any of what you’re saying. I see them being shit on though all the time.

Thanks for shedding light on this!

decision by world to federate with threads

..anyone know if I can block threads so I won't have to abandon the instance or be subjected to Meta poison?

Are you seeing these pro-meta articles on Lemmy or on Mastodon? I haven't seen them, or much negative effect yet from Threads in general despite my instance being federated, but I assume that's because I only use Lemmy.

(For the record, I would prefer if lemmy.world and mastodon.world defederated regardless.)

I have not seen any uptick. But then again, I'm not looking for it.

If anything, all the extra traffic concerning it will persuade me to be proactive about it.

I believe you that Meta is a bad company with a clear track record of perpetrating harms any time there's profit to be made. I am not, however convinced that small independent services blocking communication with them is a net positive for the world. Instead, I think there's an opportunity to get their users to migrate away.

That's not to say that some servers shouldn't block them. For a tightly-moderated server, the scale of moderation problems it could bring is argument enough. There are good options for those who are looking for that sort of thing.

I don't want my Lemmy server to block Threads unless it actually does become a moderation nightmare. I don't intend to block it from my self-hosted Mastodon server either. In fact, I haven't blocked anything there yet. I will if I run into anybody being a jerk, but it seems like bird photos and flashlight reviews don't attract that sort of thing.

What is “the people” in context of this post? Like… Meta employees?

You don't defeat meta by calling out shills.

You can't stop data collection by keeping the fediverse "pure blooded".

That involves a digital bill of rights. Positive rights legislation.

That won't come until we introduce competition into our voting system by making third parties viable by switching away from First past the post voting.

We can change how we vote at a state level (for now), so we don't need to pass something federally. We don't need to beg for representation, we can just reach our and take it. Alaska and Maine have already done away with first past the post voting, so why not yours?

If you are not convinced this is the way, Republicans are moving to ban alternative voting systems in states they control. Do you really want to use the voting system republicans prefer?

What's the excuse blue states?

beligerent god (sic)

You mean beneficent?

mark Zuckerberg is a robot coded by a lizard

Provide proof! I call BS. I see why more anti-Meta posts and pushing it on people. Anywhere here can search and you’ll find it. It dominates any conversations about Meta

I think this is generally a valid point of view. However, what I don't like is to frame it as a easy-to-make-point, something that is basically obvious. Because it isn't, mainly, because of network effects.

Not opening up to Meta means prevent the Fediverse from becoming a global thing. Not opening up to Meta means not to shape the future of the social web.

If you have this opinion, you implicitly say that you want the Fediverse to stay small. However, I think we can all agree that it would be good if the Fediverse became big. And the only possibility to achieve that is through the growth through Meta, which doesn't mean working together with it, but profiting from it and cutting in its growth (which admittedly, will not be easy as well and, as you pointed out, also comes with its own moral drawbacks, which have to be thought of, too).

Meta is not cool. But it won't help to hide away in a shelter until the whole thing has blown over. Because it won't. All that will happen is that the part that opened up to Meta will grow rapidly and the other part will stay small and become less relevant. In this sense, now is the best time to drive change in the social web, until it is again dominated by Meta. Now we still have the choice to join and work against Meta in the social web.

Just because you federate doesn't necessarily mean that you work together with it. But if you hide away, you leave the whole field of action up to Meta without even trying. Apart from the fact that it's barely explainable to anyone outside the Fediverse. They will and already do blame us of double-standards: why create an open protocoll if the ecosystem wants to stay small anyways?