hachyderm.io is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Hachyderm is a safe space, LGBTQIA+ and BLM, primarily comprised of tech industry professionals world wide. Note that many non-user account types have restrictions - please see our About page.

Administered by:

Server stats:

9.8K
active users

Jenniferplusplus

I consider that the Social Web Foundation™ is poisoned by having Meta as a partner, and that they are fundamentally unable to fulfill their mission as long as they keep that partnership.

And, that poison does not transitively extend to other partners of the SWF. I hope those other partners are using what influence they have to convince the SWF to cut ties with Meta, including ending their own partnerships. But they can and should try other methods first. That is the full extent of their responsibility, as far as I'm concerned.

Blåhaj ZoneJon (@jdp23)I was just reading https://www.404media.co/its-total-chaos-internally-at-meta-right-now-employees-protest-zuckerbergs-anti-lgbtq-changes/ and thinking about these discussions from a few months ago ... Ben, in [The Two Fediverses](https://werd.io/2024/the-two-fediverses) you wrote > "The checks and balances produced by an open debate between the two approaches are particularly useful when considering partners like Meta. The productive tension between these two visions could ensure that while larger platforms like Meta are held accountable, the values of grassroots communities — safety, inclusivity, and equity, for example — are not sacrificed in the pursuit of growth." In another thread Anil mentioned "[We have to pursue harm reduction for them even as we push to hold meta accountable]((https://me.dm/@anildash/113217428337417759)", and Mallory similarly described SWF as ["the best chance to establish the conditions in which the new social media operates with zero harm"](https://www.apc.org/en/blog/announcing-launch-social-web-foundation) In the current situation ... What (if anything) is @swf@socialwebfoundation.org and its advisors doing to leverage relationships with Meta to get them to roll back the anti-LGBTQIA2S+ / anti-immigrant / anti-woman / etc they've just made to their guidelines? And if they *don't* change, what (if anything) will SWF do to a) hold them accountable and/or b) help reduce harm to the rest of the "social web"? @ben@werd.social @laurenshof@indieweb.social @mallory@techpolicy.social @anildash@me.dm RE: I agree that SWF as an industry-funded non-profit taking a multi-polar approach has to engage with Meta ... but taking material support from Meta -- and including them on the launch announcement -- isn't the only way to engage. I get why they're taking the approach they are, but it's just not true that it's the only option. There was a lot that I liked in your post -- I posted about it on SocialHub highlighting some stuff I especially agreed with -- but there was also stuff I wasn't as wild about. For one thing, where's the power analysis? Also, I think you're mixing two things together in your "movement fediverse". - the openness/decentralization movement, which is predominantly (although not completely) cis, white, and male and IMHO doesn't collectively give a flying fuck about equity - an equity-focused social justice movement , that's very focused on *changing* the fediverse So when you characterize the "movement fediverse" as thinking that "preserving the values of the existing community is paramount" ... yes and no. Many of the people who see decentralized social networks as a grassroots movement and Meta as a threat do indeed what to preserve the fediverse's historical racism, male-dominance, and cis-dominance. Others don't -- including people like Marcia X, who you're explicitly including in the movement fediverse. So when you say "It’s understandable that some in the movement Fediverse feel uncomfortable with large corporate platforms, particularly those with a history of past harms, joining the network" it undercuts the point that it's not just the large corporate platforms that people feel uncomfortable about. It's also very specifically the racist, anti-LGBTQIA2S+, Islamophobic, lawbreaking, genocidal, very large corporate platform in the fediverse -- and the willingness for so many fediverse influencers to frame it as "a huge victory for our cause" and say sycophantic things about their new surveillance capitalism overlords. You personally don't describe it that way; but others do, and by eliding this, you're enabling them. And while you accurately point out that the movement fediverse needs to make a lot of progress on the equity front ... why aren't you turning the same lens on the "growth fediverse" in general and SWF in particular? The discussion in [The Annotated case for "Big Fedi"](https://privacy.thenexus.today/the-annotated-case-for-a-big-fedi/) apply just as much to your summary of growth fediverse philosoiphy. Don't get me wrong, I think you've accurately described the view, but you're leaving the same kinds of thing unstated. For example: * "All parties should focus on a single technical standard in order ensure everyone **[including Nazis, racists, transphobes, white supremacists, hate groups who target people of color, LGBTQIA2S+ people, and other marginalized communities]** can interoperate and the network can grow **[to include more Nazis etc as well with their the people they target]** * The focus should be on onboarding, education, and developer experience **[instead of safety or equity]]** So highlighting this only for the "movement fediverse" without paying attention to the "growth fediverse" and SWF's again makes it look like you're giving them cover. @ben@werd.social @laurenshof@indieweb.social RE: ...