111

Federation decision regarding Facebook and "Project 92" (pawb.social)

submitted 1 year ago by crashdoom@pawb.social to c/pawbsocial_announcements@pawb.social

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Over the past 48 hours, we've received a lot of discourse regarding the upcoming "Project 92" platform created by Facebook and the anti-meta fedi pact.

While we're still in early days of the request for comments, a clear pattern has emerged that users of Pawb.Social services unequivocally do not want their data to be abused by corporate interests, such as those of Facebook.

Over and above the corporate interests, Facebook has also demonstrated a repeated failure to enact meaningful moderation changes to avoid abusive content on their platform, especially misinformation.^[^^1^^][^^2^^][^^3^^]^

"I do wonder if this discussion is a little academic, because I feel like Meta instances are very likely to get defederated for some reason under the current rules, like poor moderation, spam, or generic abuse." ^[^^4^^]^

As pointed out above, excluding the corporate interests, the discussion is somewhat moot due to the concerns regarding moderation which would lead to a Facebook operated instance being inevitably suspended.

For these reasons, Pawb.Social (including furry.engineer and pawb.fun) will suspend any and all Facebook owned, operated, or affiliated instances in the interests of protecting our users and communities.

sources and references

[1] Emma Graham-Harrison and Alex Hern; The Guardian. 2020. "Facebook funnelling readers towards Covid misinformation - study." Retrieved June 19, 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/aug/19/facebook-funnelling-readers-towards-covid-misinformation-study

[2] Wes Davis; The Verge. 2023. "Meta is rolling back its covid-19 misinformation rules in the US." Retrieved June 19, 2023, https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/17/23764429/meta-covid-misinformation-rules-facebook-instagram

[3] Kris Van Cleave; CBS Evening News. 2021. " CBS Evening News Internal Facebook documents detail how misinformation spreads to users." Retrieved June 19, 2023, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-documents-misinformation-spread/

[4] Cyrik (@CyrikCroc). 2023. Comment on topic "Join or ignore the anti-meta fedi pact". Retrieved June 19, 2023, https://pawb.social/comment/239407

top 28 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Zander@pawb.social 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Thank you for taking user input and taking action based on it! It gives me confidence this instance is in good pawbs!

[-] Lockely@pawb.social 17 points 1 year ago

Thank you for caring about our data privacy!

[-] mechanicalotter@pawb.social 15 points 1 year ago

I am relieved, thank you folks.

[-] Wahots@pawb.social 12 points 1 year ago

Man, Zuckerberg must really be scraping rock bottom if he's coming crawling to us. I was hoping he'd keep wasting billions on his metaverse project. Don't federate with those guys. They're addicted to data and just need their fix.

[-] southernwolf@pawb.social 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I won't say I approve, but that choice is up to the instances to decide. I'm hardly a fan of Meta and don't use their services, so it ultimately impacts me very little, if at all. Just don't tend to be a fan of pre-emptive judgment on such things.

[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 2 points 1 year ago

It's not really preemptive - Facebook is a massive company. The way they're built is just like we worry with AI - they have a fundamental misalignment with the needs and wants of humanity

Facebook will try to control and extract wealth from the fediverse. Even if their intentions were entirely pure (and I'm pretty sure their goal is right just data harvesting and hedging their bets), it can't help it - it's what a company is

It doesn't matter if no one at Facebook wants this to happen, it's inevitable. Once a company grows to the point you have people making decisions who barely know each other, the system starts to show emergent behaviors.

As revenue is the most important and most easily tracked metric, there's a selection pressure to get promoted up the ladder for people who push just a little further past the average to squeeze out more money. Competitors need to do the same, and so the system shifts towards slowly pushing the boundaries - not fast enough to get backlash, but there's a constant incentive to go the furthest without crossing the line

There's only so much opportunity for growth after all, and there's always people climbing the ladder. And even as opportunities for big wins become more rare, the numbers competing for them increases

And that's why you can't trust a corporation. It's like trusting a river not to wear away the rock. It's not a matter of good or evil, that's just the nature of what it is - it doesn't matter what the water wants, so long as it's part of the river it'll be pushed and pulled along

[-] Gsus4@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

For a moment there, I thought you were talking about banking...

[-] Faoluin@pawb.social 11 points 1 year ago

Thank you!

[-] asimplefriedegg@yiffit.net 9 points 1 year ago

nice

[-] Liome@pawb.social 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm on a fence for this one. I don't exactly want big tech sticking their nose here, but tbh, if they really wanted, they could spin an instance that poses as normal one, and use that to scrub user data and not tell anyone.

On the other hand, it promotes fediverse, and that might lead to two things: ruining fediverse, or hopefully internet deshittification if it is more widely adopted.

Meta offers many users joining fediverse, but also meta is rather low on my trust list, so I don't know. I will definitely watch this with interest, but also mistrust. They'll probably reveal their cards soon enough.

[-] gallusfox@furry.engineer 8 points 1 year ago

@crashdoom Really not a fan of preemptive decisions like this. Can we at least wait and see rather than make decisions with literally zero information? The "data privacy" aspect is kinda silly because all our data here is effectively public anyway.

[-] crashdoom@pawb.social 27 points 1 year ago

Given the consensus trends towards blocking right now, if the community does change its mind down the line and Facebook demonstrates a level of change that trends towards improved moderation and moral business practices, we would be open to reconsidering this decision.

[-] Maeve@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

The day my trust in zucc/fb goes up is the day they chunk my dead body out.

[-] gallusfox@furry.engineer 7 points 1 year ago

@crashdoom Honestly not defending FB/Meta to be clear, I don't particularly care if they are blocked.

My concern is that moderation decisions are being made by only polling the loudest voices in the community and the polling is happening before there's enough information to form a useful opinion.

[-] Lockely@pawb.social 16 points 1 year ago

There's plenty of information out there about what Meta/Facebook does with the data it mines and acquires though. We don't need a wait and see approach when it comes to them.

If we were talking about Tumblr/Automattic, sure. They seem fine as far as corpos go, but Meta? No way.

[-] Balinares@pawb.social 4 points 1 year ago

Does anything prevent unblocking them if they do in the end turn up to be good actors? The thing is, they've got a history of real bad behavior, so blocking first with an option to unblock later is both protection for the open Fedi, while incentivizing Meta to make amends and improve... assuming they even want to. And if they don't, we're better off with them blocked in the first place.

So, I find it hard not to firmly back the decision to preemptively block here.

[-] crashdoom@pawb.social 4 points 1 year ago

There’s no reason we couldn’t reconsider in the future if they show signs of meaningful change and that they would be good actors in the Fediverse.

I just want to trend towards caution given their previous track record and that appeared to be the trend I was seeing in the community as well.

[-] nekayee@furry.engineer 1 points 1 year ago

@crashdoom
Okay, so first everyone is gonna block the meta instance. Then they will judge how the meta instance behaves towards other instances? You are literally building a brick wall around them. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[-] crashdoom@pawb.social 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Potentially, it's also a catch-22.

Preemptively stating we'll block them is on the expectation that their moderation practices will follow to this new platform and will inevitably lead to the same issue a lot of users opted to leave Facebook and Twitter for: Transphobia, homophobia, sexism, racism, misinformation, and an unwillingness to moderate such away.

Not blocking them has the opposite effect, we end up with content flooding from this new platform drowning out users with abusive content, having to go through deleting it with the small team we have, and inevitably blocking them.

While I don't think Facebook would knowingly or willingly host illegal content, immoral and toxic content that is a detriment to our community is their bread and butter which we have a clear-cut policy of not tolerating.

Facebook is a known toxic entity that is unwilling to moderate, in the same way as Gab or Truth Social, and we don't want to expose users to that. If I end up with egg on my face and being wrong, and Facebook does completely change their tune, I'll own up to my preconceptions being incorrect and apologize.

[-] Maeve@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

I’d hope our hosts aren’t selling our data to targeted ad companies building profiles on us with 650k lines of categorization.

[-] HubertManne@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

I really would prefer all blocking and trust and such to be at the individual level. I want to curate to what I think it is good not what other folks do.