Re: Meta censoring Pixelfed links?

Hi,
I don’t think this is disruptive, defaming or  harassing.

Meta’s actions in this regard are largely governed by a consent decree.

https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/092-3184-182-3109-c-4365-facebook-inc-matter


Jason


On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 3:50 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> po 20. 1. 2025 v 0:25 odesílatel Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name>
> napsal:
>
>> This kind of message is inappropriate for this list.
>>
>> <https://www.w3.org/community/about/process/#general-policies>
>>
>> "Communications must not be disruptive. Participants must refrain from
>> defaming, harassing or otherwise offending other participants or their
>> organizations."
>>
>> In standards organizations, we usually leave outside issues at the door.
>>
>> Nobody here should have to be on the hook for everything their
>> organizations do, especially if it's not directly related to ActivityPub
>> implementation.
>>
>> Let's keep this group for collaborating on Social Web standards, and save
>> the commentary on other practices for other venues.
>>
>> Evan
>>
>
> HI Evan
>
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I see where you’re coming from, but I’d
> like to gently push back a bit. Sean’s email seems relevant to me—it
> touches on federation, interoperability, and broader issues that affect how
> ActivityPub and similar standards are adopted in the wild. These are
> important conversations, and I think they have a place here, especially
> since they intersect with the practical realities of implementing and
> advocating for the Social Web.
>
> I didn’t read Sean’s email as disruptive or offensive—it seemed like a
> good-faith call for clarification and dialogue. If there’s a specific
> policy you think applies here, maybe it’s worth raising it with the W3C
> Code of Conduct Committee for guidance.
>
>
>>
>>
>> On January 19, 2025 5:01:43 PM EST, Sean O'Brien <sean.obrien@yale.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> I would like to request that the Meta representatives on this list please respond to these concerns re: Pixelfed and potential anti-competitive behavior by Meta:
>>>
>>> https://archive.is/XwgRu
>>>
>>> https://www.404media.co/meta-is-blocking-links-to-decentralized-instagram-competitor-pixelfed/
>>>
>>> Is Meta engaging in anti-competitive behavior in regard to Pixelfed?  Can the Meta employees on this list please escalate within your organization and get a response?
>>>
>>> Meta's enthusiasm for interop and federation in regard to Threads is approximately one year old now. What goodwill has been gained in that time across the fediverse could disappear in a day.
>>>
>>> In my opinion, Pixelfed is vitally important for the fediverse at this moment and purposeful removal or blocking of Pixelfed links could be construed as monopolistic.  Minds more legally-grounded than mine might find such actions illegal, and there is precedent for this going back at least to Microsoft's error messages in regard to DR-DOS.
>>>
>>> Pixelfed is a popular, established, and growing fediverse project and a potential competitor for Instagram. The developers are now also working on Loops, a TikTok-like fediverse project that has been gaining steam due to the TikTok ban in the US. Censorship of Pixelfed at a time when the same devs are building a fediverse alternative for TikTok refugees is not a good look.
>>>
>>> If this topic was covered here already, I apologize in advance for missing it.  Clarification, please.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Sean
>>>
>>>