Re: Meta censoring Pixelfed links?

Evan, I fully understand now. I will not start or reply to a thread 
about Meta on this list unless the context is positive or it may be 
construed as "harassment". It is important to me that digital spaces I 
spend my time in are welcoming places for open discussion.


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

On 1/19/25 20:34, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Ben,
>
> It's up to all of us to make this group a welcoming place where people can do
> the work of social web standardization without getting harassed.
>
> If we don't have consensus on whether this is acceptable, I'll leave it up to
> the chairs. It's their job to handle this kind of dispute.
>
> Evan
>
> On Jan 19, 2025 19:11, ben@bengo.co wrote:
>
>      I strongly disagree with Evan. This is appropriate for this list.
>
>      Sean’s message is not disruptive.
>
>      Evan’s, demanding silence, is disruptive.
>
>      Evan, this is the second time you’ve unnecessarily and inappropriately
>      policed Sean.
>
>      Stop.
>
>      (sent while mobile)
>
>          On Jan 19, 2025, at 3:24 PM, Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name> wrote:
>
>          
>          This kind of message is inappropriate for this list.
>
>          <https://www.w3.org/community/about/process/#general-policies
>          <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
>
>
>          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://archive.is/XwgRu>
>
>              https://www.404media.co/meta-is-blocking-links-to-decentralized-instagram-competitor-pixelfed/ <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
>
>

Received on Monday, 20 January 2025 08:16:38 UTC