Nah that guy gives me bad vibes-- don't like him.

I like Milton Friedman, though.

First, no alternative is required for something to be unacceptable to continue

Yes there is! This system is at least feeding most people in most countries. I refuse to say that "because this system is not ideal, we must destroy the system which is feeding billions of people without an alternative in mind". Are you arguing that it should be okay for people to die?!?

Please explain-- what gymnastics?

Wikipedia definition of capitalism:

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.

If slaves don't have private ownership.... then they're not living under a capitalist system. Right? What am I missing?

So the outcome from a customer's perspective is that the price fixers have dropped their prices way lower? That's good, no?

And then once the 3rd party goes out of business and they resume their high price.... they're encouraging a new 3rd party to try again. So the prices lower again.

Meaning there's pressure on prices to be lower, which is what we want. Therefore, good system.

Of course, I'm not saying it's ideal. But is there a better system?

It’s not a side effect, it’s an effect. It’s a feature. If companies could, they would externalize everything they could. Including paying workers as little as they can (or not at all, see slavery), or externalizing the health problems with the work (see radium girls), etc, etc,

Right, but they can't! That's the whole point of capitalism! Slavery is the pinnacle of anti-capitalism, because slaves don't own their own capital! It's explicitly not capitalist.

That would be the last time I moved, so about a year ago.

Also, I happen to very much like my landlord. This is because they're heavily incentivized to address my concerns because otherwise I'd leave a bad review which they care about. Examples are: they fixed a couple of times the laundry facilities were broken, they fixed broken windows a couple of times, etc. etc.

EDIT: Actually, you're making a very good point which I didn't address properly! You're saying that voting gives society more power than prices do. This is a good point, but I disagree. I think prices control production more than any government can, because it allows a much more granular decision-making. For example, every single individual can "vote" that their apartment is too expensive by leaving and finding cheaper places, driving prices down.

Capitalism is defined as a set of rules/regulations that allows people to own the capital that they produce. Regulatory capture is when an organization gains control of the regulations to subvert other people's ability to own their capital. This is why I say that the more regulatory capture that happens, the less capitalist the system.

And yes! Capitalist systems heavily incentivize caring about money and nothing else. But the system also makes it so that when people act purely selfishly for money, that it results in good outcomes for everyone. That's why I think it's a good system.

For example, if organizations price-fix, it heavily encourages a third party to undercut them. If they try to prevent the third party by legal means, then that's not capitalism.

That's an interesting perspective! Care to share some data?

Personally, I think the fact that the median person in capitalist nations has enough food to eat is a pretty big plus! I don't think that's been the case throughout most of history.

Thanks for engaging with me so politely!

“Capitalism” is a huge umbrella term so means many different things to many different people. And as an extension of this, a lot of the things that are underneath that umbrella are inarguably … extremely bad. Environmental devastation, the oppression and wage slavery of the third world, the existence of multi-million-dollar worthless baubles when people still die from lack of affordable health care… Even if you’re very pro-capitalist it would be tough to argue that all aspects of capitalism are great for humans and humanity. Capitalism optimizes for economic performance, not human happiness.

You're right! But I don't see how the bad things are the fault of capitalism. Capitalism is a tool intended to fix these very problems!

Environmental devastation is an externality because the rules haven't been defined properly-- if the rules of capital ownership around environmental concerns were clarified (through some system of carbon emission limitations and carbon credits), then I'm sure capitalism could optimize for a good environmental outcome. A bad thing, to be sure, but not the fault of capitalism.

Oppression/wage-slavery in the third world happens mostly in nations that are the least capitalist. Also, the capitalist system works for the benefit of the country that establishes it. I believe this is how it should be. Other nations can simply block all trade if they want to remain unaffected, but shouldn't be surprised if the capitalist nation simply takes advantage of their non-optimal economic choices. Again, a huge problem, but not the fault of capitalism.

Mis-allocation of resources is the very problem that capitalism is best at solving. I'd argue that systems like public healthcare are hampering the ability of capitalism to solve these problems.

Also a lot of people’s only experience with oppression is through capitalism. Here, I am talking about the alienation of workers from their labor (or, put more plainly, “shitty jobs”). It’s pretty bad for the soul to work as a wage slave in Amazon Fulfillment Warehouse #143249 earning $14/hour while bosses so removed from you they may as well be on another planet earn roughly $14,000,000/minute for doing nothing more than sitting in an office for 2 hours a day and sexually harassing their hot secretaries. Obviously there’s more to it than this for those of us who are more pro-capitalism, but I think it’s easy to see how some people get very angry about these conditions very rapidly.

Agreed-- I've been in that situation, and understand that it doesn't seem fair. But were any other systems better? It was worse to be a farmer owned by your local feudal lord, no?

Personally, despite these problems, I am more pro-capitalist than not, but it is because I experience (and have experienced) a fair amount of non-capitalism-related-oppression.

Ah I see I may have been preaching to the choir here, I apologize. Your perspective is appreciated, regardless! Thanks for your input!

Quoting my reply to a similar sentiment: (link here: https://programming.dev/comment/1167202)

I’m really not trying to be a dick, but uhh… Look around? The world is literally on fire and efforts to put it out or even to stop pouring more gas on it are put down at every turn by capitalists in the never ending pursuit of more money for it’s own sake.

Well I mean it’s unclear to me that we’re much worse than previous points in history. I’d rather have the climate crisis over the nuclear one, or either of the world wars, or live under a feudal system where I’m owned by the local lord in his castle.

I sympathize (and agree) with the belief that the current system isn’t serving everyone, much less serving everyone equally. But the world is a complicated thing and we’ve got >7 billion people to feed! I think we should be very careful before deciding “yeah it’s time to tear down the existing systems and hope that there are better systems out there”. It’s easier to make things worse than to make things better.

I mean... it has, hasn't it? It's worked pretty well for the last ~200 years. Even in China, the successful parts are the capitalist parts.

Yes, it's costing us in terms of environmental sustainability. This is an externality which can be (but hasn't been) addressed. A failure of government, not a failure of capitalism.

Capitalism isn’t you buying a tool and using it. It’s buying the 3D printer, paying people to design and build widgets, paying people to sell the widgets, then taking most of the money for yourself.

Yes, I agree that this should be possible. Of course, if I'm taking too much money, the capitalist system will encourage my competitors to defeat me. Meaning that there a dis-incentive in place for doing bad/selfish things. Sounds like a pretty good system!

I hate that I can work (with others) to build a company from the ground up and have nothing to show for it, because the owner is using us to fund his lifestyle. I hate that landlords can buy up all the homes, driving up the cost to the point no one can afford one, then rent them out and sit on their ass while I pay their mortgage. That’s capitalism. People profiting off of ownership. It inevitably ends with some people owning almost everything, and the majority owning nothing.

Yes I agree! I hate these things too. But capitalism doesn't prohibit every bad thing. Bad things can still happen under capitalism. I'm just saying that such things are harder to do under capitalism than any other system. For example, you mention landlords have to buy up every home before they can take advantage of you through their monopoly. That's way harder than other systems, where the government already owns all the homes, and can simply drive up the cost whenever they want :/

Yes! I'm aware of externalities, and agree that these are a side-effect of capitalism. My belief is that externalities are failures of the governing bodies to correctly define the "rules of ownership". Once that's done, the externality is resolved. This is an ongoing effort that's necessary to properly use capitalism.

In my opinion, saying "capitalism is bad because of externalities" is like saying "I used an electric saw without installing the safties and it had bad side effects".

Quoting my response (link: https://programming.dev/comment/1167093) for how I believe that environmental concerns are an externality that can be addressed here:

What is your general plan for what we should do when we can see that something we currently do and rely on will have to stop in the near future? Not that we will have to choose to stop it, but that it will stop because of something being depleted or no longer possible.

This is an interesting question! I’m parsing it to mean “how can the current problems be solved within a capitalist system?”. It’s a good question, and I don’t have a 100% guaranteed answer. But I don’t see that any capitalism alternative has a good answer either, so still I don’t see how capitalism is the “bad guy”.

In any case, my answer is this: A side effect of all of capitalist driven efficient production is that the environment is harmed. Here, I think the governing bodies have failed in their roles: their role is to define what “capital” means and rules of ownership. They haven’t done that for environmental concerns, which is why capitalism isn’t taking it into account properly. My desired solution is that the government could define a “total amount of carbon emissions” that would be allowed by the country as a whole, and then distribute transferrable carbon credits on the open market. This turns “rights to emit carbon” into a form of capital, and capitalism will do what it do and optimize for it.

In essence, I believe that governments have done a bad job of using the tool of capitalism to solve the problem of pollution.

Quoting my reply to a similar sentiment: (link here: https://programming.dev/comment/1167202)

I’m really not trying to be a dick, but uhh… Look around? The world is literally on fire and efforts to put it out or even to stop pouring more gas on it are put down at every turn by capitalists in the never ending pursuit of more money for it’s own sake.

Well I mean it’s unclear to me that we’re much worse than previous points in history. I’d rather have the climate crisis over the nuclear one, or either of the world wars, or live under a feudal system where I’m owned by the local lord in his castle.

I sympathize (and agree) with the belief that the current system isn’t serving everyone, much less serving everyone equally. But the world is a complicated thing and we’ve got >7 billion people to feed! I think we should be very careful before deciding “yeah it’s time to tear down the existing systems and hope that there are better systems out there”. It’s easier to make things worse than to make things better.

Yeah, and if they serve the needs of customers better, then they'll be given encouragement (money). If they don't, they'll be given discouragement (they lose their investments). Seems like a good system, no?

Of course, corruption and regulatory capture subvert this system and are bad for everyone, but those are subversions of capitalism.

I don't see how that's obvious. Can you give me the rationale for this other system?

The rationale for capitalism is, essentially, the information problem. Basically, no one person has enough information to decide where a society's resources should be distributed. An analogy I've heard is: how should society decide whether they should build a bridge or a tunnel (one takes more wood, the other takes more steel)? The answer is extremely complicated, depending on society's capacity for producing wood and steel, people's desire for either a bridge or tunnel, and future expectations of the need for wood or steel. The answer is given by prices, which encode this information and incentivize making the right choice.

If wood is cheaper, it means there's more wood available and no one expects a huge need of wood to pop up soon. The same for steel, labor, land, and all the other resources that go into building a tunnel or bridge. Society is incentivized to build it for the lowest cost, which also happens to be the most efficient way to do it.

Is there a system which can do better? Would love to hear about it.

And also, I'm very scared when people suggest "down with capitalism!" because it's a pretty decent system and I worry about tearing society down unless we have very good reasons to believe it'll be better for it.

I’m really not trying to be a dick, but uhh… Look around? The world is literally on fire and efforts to put it out or even to stop pouring more gas on it are put down at every turn by capitalists in the never ending pursuit of more money for it’s own sake.

Well I mean it's unclear to me that we're much worse than previous points in history. I'd rather have the climate crisis over the nuclear one, or either of the world wars, or live under a feudal system where I'm owned by the local lord in his castle.

I sympathize (and agree) with the belief that the current system isn't serving everyone, much less serving everyone equally. But the world is a complicated thing and we've got >7 billion people to feed! I think we should be very careful before deciding "yeah it's time to tear down the existing systems and hope that there are better systems out there". It's easier to make things worse than to make things better.

Let’s start here: are you a capitalist? Do you own any actual capital? I don’t mean your own house or car, that is personal property not private property or anything resembling the means of production.

I guess? I've wanted to start my own business a couple of times. I'm a programmer, so I've toyed with the idea and done some research into creating a few apps which I believe people would find useful, and might pay my bills. I don't own a house or a car-- I live in an apartment in a mid-size US city.

I ask because many people consider themselves capitalist when really they are just workers who happen to own a bit of personal property, and they make themselves essentially useful pawns for actual capitalists. And, if you’re not an actual capitalist, why are you so pro capitalism?

I'm guessing you'd consider me a pawn, but I don't. I fit your description of owning a bit of personal property, and being a worker. I've worked for some large companies in the past which are supposedly the "actual capitalists". But I promise they don't give two shits about social good (or social bad). They are just desperately trying to make products that people want to buy. In my view, it's a pretty good system which constrains huge organizations like Apple to making devices, when the alternative is that they could be setting up their own governments.

Because it’s objectively unsustainable?

I don't think we know that. Indeed, what we're currently doing as a species to the environment is unsustainable. But it's not clear to me how it's the capitalism that's the unsustainable part. My understanding is that capitalism is a system which allows us, as a society, to produce things very efficiently, and to distribute resources. It hasn't failed in that role, has it?

I don’t really get what it even means to be “pro capitalist” at this point.

I believe that, for example, if I wanted to open a bookshop, I should be able to. Or that if I wanted to rent a couple of 3D printers and sell widgets, that I should be able to. Or if I wanted to hire some dude on fiverr to write some music to my screenplay, I should be able to. This is capitalism. Do you disagree? This is what confuses me, and why I asked the question-- on my side of the fence, I don't really understand what it means to be anti-capitalist. Hence why I asked.

We know, for a fact, that capitalism will lead to disaster if we keep doing what we’re doing. Do you disagree with that? Or do you not care?

Well no need to be rude! Of course I care! And yes, we're headed towards disaster in terms of the environment. But I don't understand, like I said above, how capitalism is causing it and how not-capitalism would solve it. We have 7 billion people on the planet and they all need to be fed. Capitalism is the most efficient system we know of to create and allocate resources. Should we... move to a less efficient system? Wouldn't that be worse for the environment? How does that solve anything? This is my confusion.

What is your general plan for what we should do when we can see that something we currently do and rely on will have to stop in the near future? Not that we will have to choose to stop it, but that it will stop because of something being depleted or no longer possible.

This is an interesting question! I'm parsing it to mean "how can the current problems be solved within a capitalist system?". It's a good question, and I don't have a 100% guaranteed answer. But I don't see that any capitalism alternative has a good answer either, so still I don't see how capitalism is the "bad guy".

In any case, my answer is this: A side effect of all of capitalist driven efficient production is that the environment is harmed. Here, I think the governing bodies have failed in their roles: their role is to define what "capital" means and rules of ownership. They haven't done that for environmental concerns, which is why capitalism isn't taking it into account properly. My desired solution is that the government could define a "total amount of carbon emissions" that would be allowed by the country as a whole, and then distribute transferrable carbon credits on the open market. This turns "rights to emit carbon" into a form of capital, and capitalism will do what it do and optimize for it.

In essence, I believe that governments have done a bad job of using the tool of capitalism to solve the problem of pollution.

If you imagine that we’re trying to find the best long-term system for humanity, and that the possible solutions exist on a curve on an X/Y plane, and we want to find the lowest point on the function, capitalism is very clearly a local minima

Great analogy! But.... have we seen a lower minimum? What's the rationale behind that system? That's my question

I do the same! It works quite well.

My point is that any meaningful capital is directly tied to resource usage. Our ability to produce energy directly depends on our ability to mine resources to build power plants and maintain them. Saying that we can increase energy production infinitely is reductive beyond any meaning, it’s like a physics problem about a perfectly spherical cow.

Not at all! To use real examples to avoid spherical cows:

Used to be that you needed wood to generate energy. Then coal (which is an order of magnitude better). Then oil (another order of magnitude). Then solar. Then fission. Then (hopefully) fusion. Then who knows what. At each step, we've taken something which previously wasn't considered a resource at all and used it to generate exponentially more and more energy. There's no limit to how often we can do this-- things which were previously not resources become resources once we know how to use them.

Another example is food production. I saw a graph recently-- if I find it I'll edit this message to include it, but it showed how it used to be that we needed 100% of our population dedicated to food production. Now it's less than 1%. Meaning that 1 person is producing enough food for 100 people. Incredible.

These examples (and many more) show that our ability to produce things are not subject to limitations of natural resources, because natural resources aren't limited. There's enough energy coming out of the sun to be infinite, for all intents and purposes.

Yes, natural resources are limited, but that doesn't mean that capital is limited. What I mean is that: yes, we're using more energy as a civilization, but thanks to the investment of capital, we're also expanding our ability to produce more energy at the same time. And "how much energy our civilization is capable of producing" can increase infinitely.

Yeah, the problem of pollution is certainly an existential threat. But I don't think it's fair to say that the type of threat is "we're running out of resources". We're not running out of anything, we're just producing too much atmospheric carbon!

This is essentially the argument that Thomas Malthus (economist) made in the 1800's. And he had a point!

In his time, history had shown that the entire output of a country/state was people's productivity times some function of land and labour. Meaning you could increase the output of a country by making people more productive (limited), or increasing the land available (limited), or by increasing the labour available (also limited). Therefore, there was a hard limit on how much output a country could have. And therefore we were fucked because population increases exponentially but output only increases linearly and has limits.

I think this is similar to your lego analogy: the pieces (land, labour) are limited, therefore the output is also limited.

Then the capitalist revolution happened and once the capitalist-style legal framework was in place which allowed the ownership of capital, countries' outputs broke from the historical trend. We realized that a different function better described the output of a country. Rather than land, the correct thing to look at was capital. So the new function was people's productivity times some function of land and capital (hence, capitalism).

And unlike land, capital is, in fact, unlimited. Someone might build a factory on the land, and owning the factory, he/she has incentive to improve the factory. "How much you can improve the factory" is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited. Therefore the output is also unlimited. This equation better described the growth in output that people were seeing in reality (GDP is an attempt to measure this), which has been growing exponentially ever since.

So... we're not fucked? Well, it remains to be seen! We've certainly avoided being fucked so far! The standard of living of the average person on Earth has increased by a lot since Malthus.

Of course, this has come with negative externalities (pollution). We're still seeing infinite growth riiiiiight up until we go extinct. The trick is to keep the infinite growth without going extinct!

EDIT: spelling correction

Good to know, thank you!

Personally I think we should add a differentiation between the storage policies of content which is owned by your own instance and content that federates from other instances.

The former should be kept for a long time (forever?), while the latter can be cleared more regularly.

Good point. I guess my vision differs somewhat from that quote there. Dang.

Welp, good find! I still think my idea for federation would be more resilient, but either way, we’re all wishing the best for this instance, and I really appreciate these discussions we’re having. Cheers to that!

You’re positing we not try to convince people who hold wrong worldviews?

Absolutely fair enough. Am happy to agree to disagree. I enjoyed the debate haha!

And yes, you have a good point: Meta would indeed get value through federation, and perhaps you don't want to support Meta's goals, so you don't want to allow them to proceed. Perhaps we could enhance our user/community level moderation tools to achieve these goals? Maybe you as a user could say something like "never shall any of my posts be sent to Meta's instance". Or maybe community mods could say "Meta users can't join/post/see our community". I'm even happy if instances enable such filters by default! I just don't think defederation is the right tool for the job, because it defeats the vision of a connected universe.

I don’t feel like the example with email is fair, because it’s comparing a private messaging service between two users, and a social network where you provide content for other users

Yeah, but I believe the principle holds.

Again, thanks for the opposing viewpoint. Glad we had the debate. Cheers!

I've read that XMPP article before, but it doesn't convince me.

Yes, Meta may "kill" the fediverse. That's a risk. But either we take that risk, or we "kill" the fediverse ourselves by defederating. That's my opinion.

EDIT: Besides, defederating just hands them more users. Wouldn't you rather keep the users, and allow them to see Meta content? Maybe even attract some Meta users here by inviting them? The launch of a Meta competitor is what's causing the risk to the fediverse. Federating with them is how we can mitigate that risk.

Risks/rewards for whom?

For programming.dev? If all we care about is the survival of this website, then yeah maybe Meta poses a risk and we should defederate.

But (with respect to the admins), no one cares about programming.dev. We care about the vision of a "fediverse", where all instances' users can talk to one another if they choose. If that's what we care about, there's no choice here: federate, or you've already broken the vision.

Look, no one is saying that programming.dev should promote Meta's content on their home page. Let's beef up our moderation/content filtering tools: Let users block all @meta.com and all @meta.com communities if they choose. Let community mods block posts/cross-posts from @meta.com communities or users. Let them decide never to let Meta users subscribe to their communities. Let's even let the instance owners decide never to feature a @meta.com user's post or a @meta.com community post on "all" or "local". Make it so that the only way to find a Meta post/user is by actively searching for it or subscribing to their communities. That's all well and good.

But defederation is worse than that. What defederation really means is: "Even if programming.dev users want to see Meta content or post there, we won't allow it. Go create an account there instead.". As soon as you do that, it's not a fediverse anymore.

… for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive …

If we can't convince people of our point of view, then that's our failing. Also, users on an individual level have the ability to block communities from their own feed, and mods have the ability to ban people and moderate views on their community. By de-federating, we're saying "we hereby prevent anyone on our server from interacting with users on Meta, even if they want to". That doesn't seem appropriate.

corporations do not merit civil personhood, yet I think focusing on free speech is veering away from the question and hand: in particular, how should the Fediverse (or at least our instance in particular) respond on engaging with Facebook, in light of what we currently know of the corporation’s historic actions, as well as our uncertainty of it’s future actions.

If we want to be a fediverse, then we IMO by definition allow users to post/join/view any communities they choose no matter where it's hosted. If we don't do that, we're not really a fediverse.

I suppose we could also rephrase this question more generally. I.e how should Fediverse communities respond to the hypothetical approach of other social media conglomerates, supposing the Fediverse gains the attention of not just Facebook, but also:

That would be great! Every company should join the fediverse. That way, they'd all have a strong interest to keep federating with others, because no one wants to cut themselves off from valuable content. In fact, the only thing that does worry me about Meta joining the fediverse is that they might become "too big". The more companies join, the less likely that is to happen.****

I appreciate your engaging with me on this, though you haven't convinced me yet :)

I'm in agreement with you that Meta absolutely intends to exploit "the fediverse" for their own benefit: to gain users by making their platform valuable.

But... my take on this is: so what? If the fediverse can only operate when all actors are benevolent and selfless, then it won't last very long at all. And, even if it does, it's not as valuable to me that way, so I'll be leaving. What's the value of a fediverse if it doesn't even federate with any of the major players that have the most resources?

This would be even worse if we defederate later, once it turns out that Meta is trying to do something that really warants a defederation.

I honestly don't think that anything ever justifies defederation, aside from technical limitations. If you want to run a gated forum, fine, but then don't call it a "fediverse". It's just a forum. Would we say that it's fair for Google to say "From now on, Gmail will not send emails to @republican_party.org email addresses because we don't agree with them"?

EDIT 1: I haven't made my point very clearly. Am currently editing this message to make it clearer.

EDIT 2: Left the comment the way it was. Am struggling to express myself properly-- this is the best I can do at the moment.

Yeah I mean I agree that the phenomenon described by that “paradox” exists, but I’ve come across it before and I have very little respect for that idea.

My opinion is that this “paradox” has a simple resolution:

1. Intolerant ideas (including messages and posts) should be allowed, considered, and countered with better ideas. Should be easy, since intolerant ideas are generally shitty ones.
2. Intolerant actions (and I’m differentiating against speech from action here) should be prevented.

I say that pretty much covers it. “Intolerant people” isn’t a useful thing to talk about. Either they’re holding intolerant ideas in their head and we should respectfully convince them to reconsider, or they’re doing intolerant actions (again, not including speech/posts/comments) which should be prevented.

The “paradox” just seems like an excuse to justify people’s own intolerance, so I don’t like it.

I appreciate your reconsidering your position! Thanks for taking my argument in good faith hahaha. I was worried I’d get some hate for it.

Cheers!

I’m also interested in the same. But honestly even if Facebook is operating in bad faith, such is life. We shouldn’t abandon our core concept even so. In my eyes, we’re testing the “hardness” of the fediverse to operate even if individual instances, howsoever large, operate with self interest.

So, are we saying we want more people to create accounts on Meta's Threads?

That's what defederation would imply: people who want to interact with Meta's folks and be in touch with Meta's community would end up creating accounts there. We'd be handing users to Meta by doing that.

Clearly, Meta has tons of resources to invest. If they have half a braincell among them, they'll be able to create some value with those resources. Given that they're launching Threads with or without federation, we now have two options:

1. We let Meta enhance the value of all instances.
2. We lock out Meta, and all their value created remains their own.

What are we even talking about here? A ton of people put in a ton of effort and work to create a platform where the whole point is to have different organizations be able to inter-operate without any one instance gaining too much power. As soon as someone with actual resources wants to contribute, we shut them out? Folks, if a single organization could bring down the fediverse, then the "decentralize so that no one can gain too much power" model is proven wrong, and it was bound to fail anyway.

If we become an echo chamber where the only one who can be part of the "fediverse" are people without resources, then what's even the point? Who wants an email service that can't send emails to Gmail and Hotmail, but only YourFriendlyLocalInstance.com?

The way I see it, we should absolutely not defederate. I'd prefer to see Google or Twitter also join the fediverse, and have them competing amongst each other to make sure we have enough competition to keep any of them from wanting to defederate.

EDIT: Quoting this deep child-level comment, which explains my point of view better:

We care about the vision of a “fediverse”, where all instances’ users can talk to one another if they choose. If that’s what we care about, there’s no choice here: federate, or you’ve already broken the vision.

Look, no one is saying that programming.dev should promote Meta’s content on their home page. Let’s beef up our moderation/content filtering tools:

• Let users block all Meta communities and all Meta users if they choose.
• Let users set that none of their posts should federate to Meta.
• Let community mods block all posts from Meta users.
• Let community mods decide never to let Meta users see any of the posts on their community.
• Let the instance owners decide never to feature a Meta user’s post or a Meta community post on “all” or “local”. Make it so that the only way to find a Meta post/user is by actively searching for it or subscribing to their communities.

That’s all well and good.

But defederation is worse than that. What defederation really means is: “Even if programming.dev users want to see Meta content or post there, we won’t allow it. Go create an account there instead.” As soon as you do that, it’s not a fediverse anymore.

Really? Is there any evidence for this? I imagine they’d be open to huge lawsuits if they were exposing user data to any other parties.

I toss my KeePass file (encrypted database) in Google Drive.

That way I have all the convenience of syncing through the cloud, but I also get the benefit of having my database access and database storage be managed by separate companies.

If Google has a breach and my data gets leaked, sucks, but the database is encrypted so I’m good. If KeePass encryption is broken, sucks, but attackers would also have to find a way to gain access to my Google Drive.

You’re welcome! Hope it’s useful :)

Thanks for calling this out! Fixed, I hope. Wasn’t intentional.

I’m glad you like it! Cheers!