I would have preferred to work out some conditions* under which we would allow Meta to connect with our fedi, but perhaps it's best to come out of the gate with a big "NO" and not waste time working out terms when Meta probably doesn't see us as worth negotiating with any more than one would try to negotiate with a housefly.
...well, ok, be fair: I often do attempt to negotiate with houseflies before I deal with them more harshly, but I think you know what I mean. (They never listen, so the consequences are kinda on them, so to speak.)
@vantablack Where's that form again? I'll sign #TootCat on, and only reconsider if there's substantial disagreement from our users.
* I can go into detail, but the ideas I had were very much not softball and would ensure that Meta would actually be contributing to the long-term health of fedi as a commons, rather than preying on it.
cc: @dredmorbius @GrouchyHydra @maloki @news (anyone I'm forgetting?)
@dredmorbius@woozle NB: I'd love to see those conditions hashed out, here or elsewhere.
@dredmorbius @vantablack @GrouchyHydra @maloki @news
In some other twig of this discussion tree, I talked about a fedi software dev coop (feel free to call on Colin Mathmo's bot, whose name temporarily escapes me yet again, in order to find it).
Other things like requiring opt-in for training LLMs on post-data, collecting and selling statistics... basically, think about everything bad that bigcorps do on the web, and disallow it.
@dredmorbius @vantablack @GrouchyHydra @maloki
...oh, and one other piece of the "software dev co-op" idea would be the development of software for arriving at rational group consensus.
(You know -- the thing I've been trying to build for over a decade now. That thing.)