So I saw a recent post on lemmy from admins of another instance, forgive me for not remembering which, where they posted a full transparency update on Meta requesting a meeting with the admins of that instance. The admins declined, and then shared the correspondence with their community via screenshots of the original email from meta and their response.

My question is did @ruud@lemmy.world or any other lemmy.world admins get a similar invite, and if so, did you accept/attend?

I’m curious, because as far as I know lemmy.world has not made their stance on defederation from meta/threads very clear, not even to say that they weren’t sure or didn’t have a stance yet.

So, lemmy.world admins, If you did attend this off the record meeting, I’m sure they have some sort of agreement with you that the discussion stays off the record… But could you at least confirm or deny if you were invited to and/or attended such a meeting?

Edit: it was mastodon instance admins for Fosstodon here’s a link: https://fosstodon.org/@kev/110592625692688836 but my question still stands and I think the lemmy.world community deserves an answer.

    • Candelestine@lemmy.worldEnglish
      42·
      1 year ago

      Those are all more techy stuff. Let me know when someone addresses bribery, using their legal system as a weapon or countering marketing campaigns.

        • Candelestine@lemmy.worldEnglish
          24·
          1 year ago

          I’ve read it twice now. Bribery? Not once. Lawsuits? Not in there. Marketing strategy? Also not in there.

          You want to actually explain what I’m supposed to be seeing? EEE is just more techy bullshit.

          • jocanib@lemmy.worldEnglish
            5·
            1 year ago

            The 3rd argument for defederation:

            ➡️ To defend against being “Embraced, Extended, and Extinguished.”

            This is a real risk, and others point to Google and Facebook and XMPP, or Google and RSS Google reader. Where a big entity takes over, then rug pulls or extends an open standard slowly into a non-standard, non-interoperable functionally siloed service.

            This is a real risk. But you don’t - and can’t - defend against this by defederation.

            Why not? Because even if the entire existing Fedi pre-blocked them. Instagram has 1.6 BILLION users. If they push this, in one day just on their own they will be the size of the current Fedi’s monthly user base, and then grow from there.

            Virtually Instantly, they become the biggest ActivityPub entity on the planet. With or without a mass block.

            Some instances defederating is precisely what should happen. But all instances defederating is committing suicide to avoid being murdered.

            • Candelestine@lemmy.worldEnglish
              32·
              1 year ago

              … that is not one of the three things I was describing.

              And how does everyone pre-emptively defederating lead to our death anyway? How does it kill us?

                  • jocanib@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    3·
                    1 year ago

                    XMPP, famously, died when Google dominated the network and then defederated. Leaving XMPP users no choice but to sign up with Google to keep in touch with the bulk of google users who were no longer there.

                    Threads does not need to embrace to extinguish, it has 1.6b accounts ready to activate and now over 100m activated in the first three days. Universal defederation will drive a lot of Fedi-users to Threads simply because, if you’ve come from sites with hundreds of millions of users (Twitter and Reddit), it’s going to be very difficult for many to recreate the breadth and depth of content here, and certainly not as quickly.

                    The Fediverse would technically survive, as XMPP did. But it would likely shrink, not grow.