email from Rachel [redacted] ([redacted]@meta.com) to mail@fosstodon.org
subject: Meeting with Instagram?
sent: 2023-06-22 16:03:26 (+0100)
body:
Hello,
You may have heard of P92. I am reaching out because Instagram is interested to host a roundtable on June 27th, from 11:15am - 12:00pm PT with Mastodon server admins to seek feedback and guidance. This conversation will be off the record, as the team may discuss confidential details that should not be shared with others.
Let me know if you are interested to join, and I can send you the meetibg details.
Thank you,
Rachel
reply, sent 2023-06-23 09:36:40 (+0100):
Hi Rachel,
Thanks for the email. Meta's moral compass and my own are far from aligned, so I really don't see how this could be a productive conversation. With that in mind, I'm going to pass on this offer.
If you want my feedback/guidance, I'm happy to provide it here - your primary motivation for P92 should be to connect people, not to make money by forfeiting their privacy for ad revenue. We both know that's very unlikely to happen though. There you have it, that's my feedback, so no need for a conversation now. :)
Kind regards,
Kev Quirk
Fosstodon Co-Founder
E // <email address same as fedi username>
There is s feature in the description function to get text from image. It works quite well on clear images. You might need to touch it up but the heavy lifting is done for you. Just scroll down a bit after you click to add description.
@kev#Meta is trying to build a "conspiracy of silence." This is a tactic used in both business and religious organizations to exert control. Once, you join the conspiracy you lose agency because you are bound by your covenant of silence to them, and can no longer effectively speak out against them without violating the agreement.
Presumably there would have been an NDA in the "details".
Never ever sign an NDA without expert advice from a good lawyer, and then don't do it.
The existence the #NDA itself can not be part of the secret information covered by the NDA.
This last is perhaps the most insidious. Once you have agreed not to disclose that you have an agreement, then they have you. What's more the existence of secret agreements destroys trust everywhere because it can not be know who is a party to the secret agreement and who is not.
The fact that #Meta is approaching the #Fediverse in this manner is very telling.
@kev So now we have a date and a time for the ominous #Facebook meeting. 2023-06-27 11:15 to 12:00 PT. #Meta#Fediverse That's good to know. Thank you for sharing!
@FediThing@jwildeboer@kev pretty sure this is not the first meeting though. My read of the situation is that at least one meeting has already happened.
Either way, fedi admins should be setting the terms of any such meeting, and any such meeting needs to be open and transparent to the fedi community. Otherwise Meta gets a wedge they can drive between fedi admins, and between fedi communities.
@FediThing I can see a number of benefits, as long as the meeting is public:
If Meta takes a public meeting, that shows how much they want/need it. That's already informative.
If they take that meeting, it allows fedi admins to ask some hard questions and inform them, publicly, of our concerns — this makes it impossible for them to "play dumb" later when they inevitably start causing problems.
We already know what their motivation is though, we know from their track record. They will not be any different to before. They are not a good faith actor, and never will be.
They had hard questions put to them in various government inquiries around the world, it didn't make any difference, they just carried on and didn't care.
They will do whatever they can to gather as much data as they can in pursuit of profit, and have no consideration for any moral issues. It's just like Kev says in his reply.
@FediThing consider how my second point — "inform and make it impossible to play dumb" — affects any potential legal actions or regulatory actions later, for example.
If they are publicly told that certain behaviors (scraping, for example) are not acceptable and against the broad community consensus, if they get caught doing that later, that's malice not incompetence.
And while the "malice" part might be obvious to us, having a way of proving might become crucial.
They've already had billion dollar fines from the US and EU for doing things like this, and it hasn't stopped them.
I don't think we have anything like that kind of ability to threaten them with legal consequences.
If we wait until they've done the scraping it is too late. It won't matter to them if they were caught promising not to do it to some gathering of server admins.
And we already know it's malice now. Genocides FFS... if that isn't going to move the needle then unauthorised scraping of a social media server won't either.
@rysiek@FediThing@kev And I would hope for some sort of CoE (Code of Engagement) coming out of this. With clear rules when communicating with any commercial entity on behalf of the Fediverse. Something the Social Web group as wardens of the standard could propose and offer to act on.
@FediThing@rysiek@kev Still — some admins/devs might be impressed or flattered enough to participate. Ego is always a destructive force. So clear rules for engagement might limit possible damage and force Facebook to become less shady about those interactions.
That’s why I think we could already work on the cultural aspect to make sure that everyone understands that "collaborating with Meta will not help the Fediverse". That, as a community, we would consider anyone doing it as a "sell out" (which might be an acceptable choice if you have bill to pay but, at least, don’t pretend is for the general good)
@ploum as I said separately, participating in the meeting — as long as it is a public meeting without NDAs! — can be a valid choice even for an admin that signed the Fedi Pact.
It might be worth it to be there, to report back, to tell Meta things they will later pretend they did not know just so they cannot do exactly that: pretend they didn't know certain things are against instance terms for example, or otherwise considered abusive.
My take is that the aura of Meta might be really strong with some people, especially young professional. It takes very experienced person to go to a meeting with them without being influenced. Also, accepting the meeting set a precedent which might put the meeting+NDA not that far.
Discussion should happen in the open and with recorded minutes, else they can deny anythinhg, influence, promise and/or intimidate.
@ploum oh, we agree here. There is no question there is danger in it.
I am not even saying that people should go to the meeting. I am merely saying that I see reasons why going to the meeting, under certain conditions (transparency!), is not necessarily a bad thing.
And I am bothered how people get demonized outright for just saying that out loud.
(not saying you demonized anyone, it's just a general remark)
Hey, just to be clear here, I think @rysiek and others that I've disagreed with are some of the best people on Fedi and I follow what they say with great interest. I have recommended Rysiek on @FediFollows as a good account to follow for a long time now and still do so.
We obviously disagree on what to do about Meta at a tactical level, but it hasn't affected my respect for their opinions or my wish to pay attention to what they say. Even when you strongly disagree with someone you respect, you still take on board their opinion and consider whether they might be right.
p.s. Also, my apologies for using inflamatory language like "FFS". There are calmer ways of discussing things which I should have done. I know we are on the same side and just trying to work out the best tactics.
I did not mean you personally make those "people are evil" assumptions, and I really appreciate how civil and respectful our conversation about this has been, especially taken into account how important this topic is!
I do not claim to have the monopoly on being right, and I recognize I might be very very wrong here.
There are corner-cases (an in-between instance can boost stuff from blocking instance into blocked instance timelines).
There are things that protocol does not handle. If Meta is allowed to call itself "part of fedi" because they happen to federate with some instances, fedi as a concept basically dissolves in Meta. Language matters, we need to be aware of that.
@rysiek@jwildeboer@kev@FediThing I’m so with you. We know this monster. I see no upsides to dancing with them in any way whatsoever. They are the reason the world is fucked (not to let Bezos off the hook of course).
A resounding fuck off from all admins would be terrific.
@FediThing I just tooted that in a different branch. Making it impossible for them to claim they "didn't know" that certain actions are not acceptable or against instance terms, etc., might become very useful, crucial even, later in a legal or regulatory context.
@rysiek The fact they're looking at using AP and wanting to set up meetings at all is informative and rather interesting.
They want something, and we should be able to use that.
The idea of saying "we'll talk, but only publicly" sounds great for the reason you say, but can also set a norm going forward. Fedi is fragmented enough that likely some people will decide to talk. Given that, stop those people thinking secret talks are ok.
@staidwinnow everything here favors those with deeper pockets.
Some admins will meet or have already met with Meta, under NDAs. This is the worst possible outcome. We get no info on what's going on, Meta gets to drive a wedge in fedi, and so on.
Meeting under the condition that the meeting is public (or Chatham House rules) gives us at least what I mentioned. Does it solve the problem? No. But having some leverage is better than not having any.
@rysiek@seachanger@staidwinnow@FediThing@jwildeboer@kev Would t it be a shame if someone agreed to attend under NDA, accidentally shared their login credentials, and then made sure they didn’t show up themselves, so we could get a recording of this meeting.
Third, it makes it possible to point to it later and say: "you were told this" when inevitably they pretend — in front of a regulator, say — they "didn't know" that some form of interfacing with fedi is considered abuse.
> In the end, instances (larger ones, especially) need money for administration, maintenance, and moderation.
We need to learn to support our instances, including financially, if we can. I already do.
@niavy lawsuits, fines, cease-and-desist orders, potentially even a necessity to do a clean-room re-write of any of code written after NDAs got signed. This can get very nasty. NDAs are really dangerous beasts here.
@rysiek 💯. Fedi admins who are considering working with Meta have the most leverage before they get sucked in so should use it -- and taking an NDA meeting after the furor about the previous one undercuts their position badly.
[Of course for admins who don't want to work with Meta, not taking the meeting at all is an even better option, but I'm talking about the admins who are open to work with them.]
@jdp23 admins don't even have to want to work with Meta. If I were a fedi admin, I can see myself both signing the Fedi Pact, and at the same time being open to meeting with Meta as long as the meeting is public and no NDAs get signed!
Because I could see how telling them off in person might be a good thing. Informing them clearly about certain things might come in handy later. Many reasons.
@rysiek fair enough, that's often a very reasonable course to take. In this particular situation, things are so tense already that it's risky: anything you say (and even your attendance) can and probably will be taken out of context. Still, for instance admins who have experience working with hostile big tech companies and are confident they can explain to their community why they're going, it's a valid choice.
@rysiek@FediThing@kev Yes, I have already mentioned a few times that a meeting under Chatham House Rule would be a good compromise. It would mean that every participant is free to talk about what was discussed but not who said what (as in no public shaming).
@digital_wyrm please kindly point me to where I belittled anyone or anything. This is an honest request, I would really like to know where I stepped over that line.
@rysiek@FediThing@jwildeboer@kev I'm enjoying a Friday drive with my husband. In the passenger seat of course. Nothing I, or anyone else, has to say will change your mind. I responded for the benefit of others; not to persuade you. Arguing with someone who has already made up my mind wastes time I'd rather spend talking to my husband. I don't participate in bad faith arguments.
@rysiek, a definition of #politics is the negotiation & allocation of resources. You're engaging in #political discourse that is Machiavellian and thus immoral.
That implies you are approaching this subject from a perspective of power & influence where your members are the resource.
We produce the data. #Meta wants our data. You're effectively selling out your members. I'm a Computer Scientist. You gaslight people, too.
@digital_wyrm I do not have any "members", as I am not a fedi admin.
I am taking part in the general debate about Meta. How is what I said machiavellian?
Where was I gaslighting people? Can you point to a specific example, please? If I did — and I am not saying I didn't, this is some heated discourse that makes it easy to overstep — I would like to fix that.
@rysiek@FediThing@jwildeboer@kev It doesn't matter to me. If it devolves and goes to shit, I just won't use it. It's as simple as that.
@rysiek, you are effectively burning your house down for political influence. Again negotiations about access and resources is intrinsically political, so this is political corruption.
I don't believe in messiahs or heaven, so the #fediverse being the next best thing was far fetched to me, anyway. I lose nothing by not using it.
@digital_wyrm tl;dr we can disagree on things without accusing each other of being "machiavellian", lobbing accusations of gaslighting and selling out, and calling each other "immoral".
@kev Facebook also supported XMPP, until they did not. No doubt this is also one of the many cases where big corporations pretend to respect/be your friend/be your ally. And then they will backstab, just like they backstabbed the Whatsapp founder. Never trust this undescribably horrid and vile scum. You remained more civil in your words than I never could have. Stay strong!
@kev we have nothing to lose by talking with them, do we? Rather the other way around where at least we can hope they make more informed decisions when designing the product going forward and hopefully we benefit from that once (and if) fediverse support is added.
@kev Lets be fair, Meta need to make money somehow and their method works for them. While I'm against their ToS, their method of earning, I don't blame them for taking full advantage of a legal method that their millions of customers have accepted.
It's not Metas fault people are naive and uneducated around the subject of their own privacy, or that the legal system allows for such mass monetisation and manipulation.
Something needs to change and Meta would never be the ones to change first.
@kev How does one have an "off-the-record" conversation that requires signing an NDA? An NDA is a contract that requires subject(s) not to be discussed to be specified (on the record). Does Meta not have lawyers‽
Add comment