The recent debate and decision by world to federate with threads seems to have sparked massive pro meta propaganda. Some accounts post completely one sided articles nearly every day, using carefully crafted language to shape meta as the „facilitator“ of the fediverse and some ~~beligerent~~ benevolent god. You dont have to scroll far in this community to find the posts I‘m talking about.

Please consider reporting these posts for the propaganda they are and asking your admins to defederate from threads.net.

To show you why meta is not welcome in the fediverse, here is a quote from the fedipact which is the reason I have defederated threads in my own instance.

THEIR LONG TRACK RECORD OF PURE EVIL

i'm just gonna paste some links here because there's no point in paraphrasing what others have already said more eloquently

(if you're wondering why i'm using archive.org it's to break the fucking paywalls on these articles because fuck that, information wants to be free)

that time they helped facilitate a genocide

that time they helped try to rig an election

that time they did creepy behavioral experimentation on their users

so, yeah. there's legiterally shitloads of precedent here. not to mention all the privacy concerns. which brings us to the need many feel to protect ourselves from this insidious megacorp...

Against one thing meta-shills often try to ascribe: we dont have a problem with the people on there but it is literally everything else.

Admins and Mods who read this, please consider signing the fedipact on https://fedipact.online

Thank you very much for reading and have a nice day.

Edit: wording, crossed out

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org 37 points 8 months ago (34 children)

I literally show my wife articles of Meta/Tik Tok data breaches and other shit, and she just shrugs and keeps using it. I have a friend who works in fucking CYBER SECURITY and he still has social media apps on his phone. It's unreal.

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I get where you're coming from but is he managing his risk or not?

Does he understand the risk? If yes, good. No? Bad.

Is he ignoring the risk? If yes, bad. No? Good.

Is he weighing the risks against the benefits he receives of using these apps and taking appropriate steps to mitigate those risks? If yes, then good. No? Bad.

Cyber security isn't "lock everything down at all costs". Otherwise I would insist you throw your phone in an incinerator along with all your computers, live in a bunker reinforced against nuclear attack with a small army to guard you, never leave it, never talk to anyone... Etc.

It is enabling one to achieve their goals with a tolerable amount of risk. That level of tolerable risk is different for everyone.

[–] Black_Gulaman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This is correct. Security is managing risk to a tolerable level. Not eliminating it entirely. Unless you want to live by yourself cut off from the world. People who have black and white views on security are weird.

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Well maybe they aren't experienced info security professionals :)

load more comments (31 replies)