• paul@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    What is the benefit of “banning the crap out of them?”

    • rm_dash_r_star@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This is how the tried and true agenda goes using Meta’s threads.net and the Fediverse as an example.

      • Meta’s site gets wildly popular because of corporate backing
      • Meta’s site does something on purpose to cause poor operability with the rest of the Fediverse
      • People not on Meta’s site can no longer properly communicate with people on Meta’s site, they go to Meta’s site
      • The Fediverse gets fractured and nobody cares because everyone is on Meta’s site
      • Meta’s site is the sole survivor and the rest of the platform dies.
      • Meta enshitifies their site as corporations typically do (think Twitter)

      So yeah, ban the shit out of them. The proper term is defederate them, but do it with extreme prejudice.

      • Leclipse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        And if an instance get widely popular and gets corporate backing? Should we ban the shit out of them too?

          • Leclipse@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’m not just taking about facebook. Corpos will come sooner or later. Or maybe one of the bigger instances will become corpo.

            • jcg@halubilo.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              18
              ·
              1 year ago

              Facebook is already here, they’ve practically got their finger on the start button. Yes, ban the shit out of them, and if one of the lemmy instances suddenly has shareholders to appease instead of their users, yes, ban the shit out of them.