leraje

From the article:

"I know for a fact that Wikipedia operates under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license, which explicitly states that if you're going to use the data, you must give attribution. As far as search engines go, they can get away with it because linking back to a Wikipedia article on the same page as the search results is considered attribution.

But in the case of Brave, not only are they disregarding the license - they're also charging money for the data and then giving third parties "rights" to that data."

Sorry. I know it's getting a bit annoying with all these posts obsessing over this subject but still..

Just to make my position absolutely clear from the start of this - I think the entire fediverse should defed from anything under any form of commercial control, which clearly includes Threads (when/if it enables ActivityPub).

I see a lot of instance admins are adopting a 'wait and see' approach to defederating from Threads. With respect, I'd like to ask them - what are you waiting to see? Evidence that Meta is an immoral organisation? Surely you can't be that naive?

Or is it evidence that Threads will attempt dodgy things with the ActivityPub codebase? That they will attempt Embrace-Extend-Extinguish? If that's so, I again ask you with respect, surely you can't be that naive? When Meta start introducing little, disarmingly helpful, tweaks to ActivityPub, will your 'wait and see' stance continue? And when Meta role out their own version of the protocol, urging Mastodon, Lemmy etc to adopt it - its free! Its better! - will you still continue to 'wait and see'?

The privacy thing I don't feel is (currently) much of an issue. Meta could easily scrape all our data tomorrow if they felt like it. What I fear is privacy after they've introduced all their 'improvements' to ActivityPub and released their own version. Maybe we'll end up with a two-state fediverse where one state is happy to federate with Meta and the other is not.

The fediverse was built on the principles of open standards and open source, by people, not commercial orgs. It is slow growing, slow to react and in some areas slow to change. These are, in my opinion, amongst its greatest strengths. There is no endless money pot provided by investors, admins are volunteers running instances on VPS's, software creators are people doing it as a hobby. This is people power, not money power. There's no profit motive. The second such a massive profit driven org gets a foothold - and is allowed to - that changes. It's simply inevitable.

Is the fediverse perfect? Of course not. But I believe the problems it faces can be overcome with patience and persistent forward thinking.

Then there is the fact that some instances (and hopefully increasingly more) are seen as safe areas for gay people, trans people, non-white people, women. Opening the door to Meta means opening the door to a whole shit storm of awful people whom we currently don't have the tools to protect communities from. Is 'wait and see' really a good idea given the fact this almost certainly will happen? I mean 'wait and see' what exactly? And yes, I know we have our home-grown awful people here and guess what? We struggle to contain them already! Threads got more signups in the first 12 hours of its existence than the entire current population of the whole fediverse. You want to 'wait and see' how many of those people are cunts? Because the answer is 'a lot'.

The fact is - the fediverse doesn't need Threads, or any corporate involvement. Yes, its already smaller than Threads, it's smaller than Twitter, it's smaller than Reddit. But, at the risk of leaving myself open to obvious jokes, why does size matter? There's already, in my opinion, enough people throughout the fediverse, esp on Mastodon and Lemmy, to have created places where their is good, lively, vibrant discourse. I'd much rather have quality over quantity. There's nothing actually wrong with slower, more manageable growth. We've all got sucked into believing the bigger something is the better it must be and that unchecked growth is healthy. If we're growing uh, 'house plants' then that might be the case, but we're not. Because the fediverse is not (currently) motivated by profit, we don't need unchecked growth. I've seen so many reddit refugees recently talking about how much better the 'feel' is on Lemmy, how much less pressure and angst and nastiness there is. I can't think of a single scenario in which instantly adding double the amount of people, some of whom are pretty terrible, without decent tools to manage them, all operating under the control of a company known to embrace/extend/extinguish and who's sole motivation is profit at all costs can be beneficial to the fediverse.