Re: Meta censoring Pixelfed links?

Hi Evan,

I appreciate your swift response and I understand your role as an effective leader and uniting force in social web standards and implementations. You are an innovator and an extremely hard worker, without whom there would be no ActivityPub or fediverse as we now know it.

"Communications must not be disruptive. Participants must refrain from defaming, harassing or otherwise offending other participants or their organizations."

I have done nothing of the sort and, in fact, I am offended at the suggestion. In my organizations, I try not to quote policy unless absolutely necessary because it is easy for difficult-but-important conversations to be silenced by fear and trepidation from the participants.

"Nobody here should have to be on the hook for everything their organizations do, especially if it's not directly related to ActivityPub implementation."

I agree with the first part and I did not put anyone "on the hook". I asked direct questions which I believe need to be asked, given the supersized presence of Meta in the ActivityPub ecosystem and the serious detriment to that ecosystem of anti-competitive behavior against less-powerful platforms. That is especially true when the actions of the larger presence in the ecosystem are governed by a regulatory consent decree. Meta participants were introduced on this list as helpful ambassadors of the company to the Social Web and applauded for their decision to join this open ecosystem.

I suspect you and I are not going to agree that the topic is relevant for this list. I think it is best to hear from others.

Kind Regards,
Sean

Sean O'Brien
Research Fellow, Information Society Project (ISP) at Yale Law School
Founder, Privacy Lab at Yale ISPhttps://privacylab.yale.edu

On 1/19/25 18:23, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> "Communications must not be disruptive. Participants must refrain from
> defaming, harassing or otherwise offending other participants or their
> organizations."