Technology

37603 readers

562 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

Los@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

623

FediPact is an Organized Effort to Block Meta's ActivityPub Platform (wedistribute.org)

submitted 1 year ago by hedge@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

227 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] elevenant@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Does anyone know what there business model could be here? Technically they could get access to all federated content, just as regular instances do. But legally they don't own that content nor do they know what country it origi ated in. This sounds like a legal nightmare to me. Would they even be allowed to process content in any form created by EU users under GDPR?

[+] paco@infosec.exchange 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] elevenant@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That would be an option. However, non-Meta users would not have agreed to any terms that grant them a right to use the content. So, I could imagine that individual users could object to them using their content or even ask for compensation if they use it in any way to make money. Then again, Meta has the lawyers to fight this out. Until there is a final decision, maybe they already killed the competition as @AkumaFoxwell@feddit.de suggests...

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I question how much legal ground there'd be for individuals "withdrawing consent" to be incorporated into their platform. I think the legal question would be, "what reasonable expectation of privacy did the users have by posting content to an open-sourced network?". I'd guess their argument would be "well, they shared their content on an open network that we are also a part of."

They've been dealing with user attrition and content degradation, I imagine this could be a way for them to solve that problem. They could even just develop an app that connects to the fediverse, they don't even need to start their own instance. They could then feed ads and gather data based on their users data.

I think this will be harder to stop than we're thinking.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] gelberhut@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Are there any criteria one must meet to be allowed to use ActivityPub? And who defines them?

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] razorwiregoatlick@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Cool, so what can we do? I would like to join the army fighting off the meta hordes!

[–] circularfish@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In a strange parallel to the current Russian political situation, can one at least hope that Meta drives a stake through the heart of the bird site before this effort implodes?

Probably not, I guess. If the Lizard King actually gets to the point that he poses a real threat, it is probably because he has eaten us first.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] dumpsterlid@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

We don't need them.

load more comments