Notices by fromjason.xyz ❤️ 💻 (fromjason@mastodon.social), page 3

Meta employee sharing how #Threads algo works reminds me of an old dril tweet

@mike Great points Mike. Thank you.

Can we expect a public outline of expectations for Meta and its executives in the same vein?

Something published that identifies what tactics are or are not acceptable, with clear mechanisms to hold Meta accountable if it does not meet those standards?

I've really fallen for the quaint, "small towns” of the #openweb. I don't want to speak for everyone, but for me, it comprises the best parts of the internet.

This past year, I found myself reacquainting with the decidedly unincorporated areas of the internet. These spaces have a particular charm that I cannot easily explain. I can only describe it as the feeling you get when you discover a cool little town square on a weekend getaway.

@tchambers @Npars01 @daveleeFT That's actually an interesting analogy.

Though, I wonder how well received Nixon's meet would've been if Mao sent his lieutenants onto American soil without an established trade agreement. Some might mistake that for an invasion.

@evan @kissane @stoneymonster My concerns aren't necessarily related to my motivations for coming here.

I came here because I was concerned with myself, and that process has been non-linear as I still have meaningful personal relationships on other apps.

My expressed concerns with interpolation relate to indications that Meta's intentions are harmful. I express those concerns because I fear ActivityPub or Mastodon cannot withstand it.

@evan @kissane @stoneymonster Meta is more inclined to give away our user data for "free". It's what they did for Cambridge Analytica, who in turn developed physiological profiles of users applying the OCEAN model.

Later, the Russians bought it, Brexit, etc. We know how the story goes.

The notion that Meta is in no better position to use Mastodon users data today than it was a few weeks ago, doesn't align with the company's history.

@kissane @evan @stoneymonster I think that's absolutely the way to approach it, which brings us back to your original point.

Meta isn't some Chad scraper looking for Adsense cash. It's an ad firm, a particularly ruthless and apathetic one at that.

I know Meta already has my data. I'm slowly moving here from there because I no longer want to make content for a company that physiologically manipulates its users. Find some other content to stick between ads.

@Steveg58 Steve, my friend, I wrote the longest thread of my life, plus an additional two thousand words on my blog about my concerns.

And to be clear, I don't think the author of the post intentionally fed anyone bad info. But how much does that matter right now?

Anyone feel good about how much they know about that mysterious meeting? Anyone feeling *more* trust about any of this? Of course not. The vibes are in shambles.

The purpose of that meet was to:

A. Sow distrust with those already suspicious
B. Give those looking for a reason to trust, a plausible story to share across the fediverse. Causing more friction.

Since zero records exist, including and especially anyone's offical capacity to speak on behalf of the Fediverse, who's to say he's wrong?

And if you think, any of you nerds are going to testify as experts to clear the names of good people, I'd watch the old Cambridge scandal hearings.

Congress never knows what questions to ask and who to ask it from. It'll be Mr CEO and his network of friendly news blogs setting the narrative.

And shit, bless their heart as the only one to publish notes on that meeting.

Because when it's time for Ecorp's CEO to testify to congress on suspicion of snuffing out an open sourced protocol, he won't abide by some bullshit house rule.

Congress'll want to know who knew what when and Mr CEO will gladly give up names and quotes that'll imply he was simply acting on bad information. 🧵

Beyond that meeting summary post, there are a couple other justifications about this situation that don't vibe with reality.

A prevalent one is— "Mastodon is too small to be worth it" or "why would ECorp bother with a rounding error?"

For one, Mastodon user count isn't a rounding error. It's a behemoth of a network controlled by people unswayed by money (usually, I suppose.)

For two, killing platforms before they get too big is Ecorp's whole thing. It's what they do.

Remember Houseparty? Me neither.

Ecorp kept them busy for two months with meetings under false assumptions. Then, it cut communication and launched its copycat app Bonfire.

In a panic, Houseparty burned through a $50 million round of VC cash. It was later forced to sell to Epic Games for $30million.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-copycats-how-facebook-squashes-competition-from-startups-1502293444

In fact, ECorp kept an early detection system built on a VPN acquisition that specifically targeted small start ups.

Remember that VPN for kids ECorp launched to the App Store? Then later got caught slurping data? The app one pundit called "vampiric"? Yeah, same thing. It was hunting for small apps with momentum.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-copycats-how-facebook-squashes-competition-from-startups-1502293444

You know what killed Houseparty? It wasn't a lack of growth. They ran out of cash and couldn't scale. No one wanted to invest anymore because of a phenomenon called Kill Zone.

When the incumbent platform takes on a novel tech from the entrant platform, VC money dries up.

Ecorp didn't find this study and use it. Ecorp *invented* the practice and a university studied it.

https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/BFI_WP_202019.pdf

Holy shit it's 2 in the morning. What was my point again? lol oh right. Divide and rule.

Listen. The only way out is coming together somehow. And I don't mean in the bullshit way where the result is still somehow allowing ECorp to infiltrate while we "wait and see."

We need to start sharing information with each other. Reject invites, special treatment, or anything that could sew distrust further.

If you went to a meet, speak the hell up bro what are you doing?

If Ecorp is willing to kill a small well funded single-feature app for shareholders, what do you think it wants to do to a network of independent social platforms with no ads and a strong anti-corporate message?

You think they're here to tell us how great we are? How awesome of cause we fight for?

Or do you think they spent the first half of 2023 devising a plan to snuff out a threat? A threat, mind you, that couldn't pool enough cash to buy a house in Malibu. Let alone fight a juggernaut.

If an instance wants to do the "watch before block" thing, great. Write out and publish your terms. What is acceptable and what isn't? No more vague expectations.

If a fediverse leader amplifies rationale thats misleading, call them in and make your case. Most want what's best for the collective. Give them a graceful out so they don't double down.

Also, Ecorp will prob target small instances first. Don't let them. Unite.

Last, keep talking.

The other noteworthy point in that meeting summary post is now the leading theory for why Ecorp is suddenly interested in ActivityPub— to get EU regulators off its back.

But this reasoning doesn't align with the EU DMA orders. It sounds like it *could* but it doesn't. 4 🧵

Mastodon got its big influx of Twitter users in late Nov. In December, NYT reported that Ecorp was making the app. By March reports of an app that can interpolate with Mastodon hit.

By June they were cold calling for NDA-enforced meetings And, by the way, making sure that their emails had enough context in it for a screenshot. 3 🧵