@stux@mstdn.socialI'm gonna try to clear up a few things
Meta is not gonna buy Mastodon or any server, this is based on absolutely nothing and untrue.
Yes, some of us indeed got contacted by Meta/Insta because they are working on a new social platform (this was in the news) and they are looking into joining the Fediverse (Mark Zuckerberg also told this in the recent podcast)
SO.
This contact was about a "heads-up" for a potential big platform to join the network and not for a "take over".
[1/2]
@dredmorbius@toot.cat@stux If US and EU antitrust / competitiveness authorities cannot secure compliance from Facebook and Zuckerberg for existing and longstanding orders, what makes you think a rag-tag bunch of Fediverse admins will fare better?
Facebook are manifestly bad-faith and untrustworthy actors. Preblock, now.
Facebook is a repeat violator at the FTC. There was a consent decree that goes back close to a decade, which the FTC in 2019 found that they violated. The recent news suggests that they may have also been in violation of this latest consent order. And that is really prompting a step back and a close look at: What does it take to make sure that firms across the board are actually complying with the law? ... I think when you have companies that are repeatedly before a law-enforcement agency, you need to ask serious questions about whether these companies are recidivist and whether they have a challenge in abiding by existing laws.
-- Lina Khan, Chair of the US Federal Trade Commission, interviewed by Kara Swisher,15 May 2023
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/05/on-with-kara-swisher-ftc-chair-lina-khan-on-ai-and-musk.html
At the very least, a precondition for any cooperation would be full compliance with existing antitrust actions, sanctions, consent orders, and the like, for a period at least as long as noncompliance (so, at least ten years in the case of the order found in violation in 2019).
Edit: s/Swischer/Swisher/. Clarified and corrected out-of-compliance period regarding consent orders.
@dredmorbius Yeah really. I've talked with several admins who have described their position with Meta as "trust but verify". First of all why would you trust them? Secondly how on earth do you think you'll verify their bad behavior? smh.
> "trust but verify"
> verified to be untrustworthy on numerous independent occasions
@jdp23 I would challenge anyone with a "trust but verify" stance towards Meta to give three examples of when Meta has delivered on their promises to users (when those promises did not align with "shareholder value"). I can give many examples of the contrary.
@dredmorbiusCalling out an edit above, just so others don't miss it.
I'd initially read Khan's comments as saying that there was a 2019 consent order that FB had been noncompliant with.
No, there was a consent decree a decade old (unclear if now or in 2019) that the FTC found hadn't been complied with in 2019.
I suspect that's the 2012 order described here:
@dredmorbius it's both! In 2019 FB settled charges that they had violated the 2012 consent order, paid a $5B fine (without admitting guilt), and signed another consent order. Now the FTC's saying they violated the 2019 consent order as well.
@dredmorbius @stux Better yet, photobomb them with this meme, which Zuckerberg hates...
@dredmorbius@toxtethogrady There's always jwz's answer to HN.
(Image shown when linking to jwz.org with a news.ycombinator.com referrer.)
(obv: NSFW)
@dredmorbius@toxtethogrady On second thought, no.
That image is potentially harmful to others.
(Those to whom it might prove harmful have numerous other problems, of course, but no need to add to them.)
I suspect there are other images of which Zuck Is Mightily Displeased.
"They trust me, dumb fucks" comes to mind.
@dredmorbius I view it as humor and it's only harmful to Donald Trump. And that's the real reason Zuckerberg hates it...
@dredmorbius@toxtethogrady The basic concept is reasonable.
The specific image is not. Again, it's actively harmful and will all but certainly derail the intended message.
There are better responses possible.
@dredmorbiusIt's also worth reflecting on why Facebook pays its employees so highly. There are two principle reasons:
1. It can. The company is an absolute cash machine.
2. It has to. For both selling their morality, and mental health due to the stress.
Which is what cooperating with FB in any way, shape, or form would also entail.