cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/17795616

archive.org link

I see no reason why, after the Fediverse has found a solid moral ground, it shouldn’t put this up to the test against Meta and try to win over some terretory with it. Actually, it seems like the most sensible thing to do. Because we want to bring these digital rights to as many people as possible, and for that, we need to partially federate with Meta.

  • Kashif ShahOP
    link
    English
    -122 days ago

    Have any resources to journalistic articles that describe the way in which Meta implementing ActivityPub would be bad for the Fediverse?

    Happy to highlight any !Privacy@lemmy.ml human rights concerns (right to privacy, right to share opinions, etc.) on !humanrights@lemmy.sdf.org

    • SUPAVILLAIN
      link
      fedilink
      022 days ago

      Is the evidence of your eyes with every new Meta acquisition not enough? Is what happened to XMPP not enough? The last twenty-four years of technological history is littered with these robber barons embracing, extending, and extinguishing everything that competes with them, and you’re gonna ask me for journalistic articles WRITTEN BY THE SAME FLUFFMEISTERS THAT SOFTBALL THESE ROBBER BARONS???

      You’re a fuckin riot.

      • @GravitySpoiled@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        122 days ago

        Whatsapp wasn’t ever federated. Was it?

        Google did not yet close the doors with email. You can still use email and communicate with everyone and everyone has the right to choose another service, yet most tend to use google, even many people on apple devices that I know.

      • Kashif ShahOP
        link
        English
        -1
        edit-2
        22 days ago

        We need journalism, not vitriol, in !humanrights@lemmy.sdf.org <- I’m the moderator there. Just saying, if you see something in the news that speaks to the human right to privacy, we’ll spread the news if you cross-post it.

        Article 12, UN UDHR

        No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.