I have trouble following your final statement, where you say 'Each group is approaching the problem in good faith'. Most of the article, especially the first half, is spend building up arguments that Meta is a bad actor. On what arguments are you basing the conclusion that Meta is approaching the space in good faith?
Especially in the light that Threads meaningfully degraded their fediverse integration last week by delaying posts for 15 mins before they get send over.
@laurenshof Fair point - I'm trying to say that the SWF is operating in good faith. I'm not willing to make a comment about Meta's intentions.
@ben sure, but thats exactly what the whole discussion is about. For many people Meta is obviously a bad actor, and they see this as a transitive property to any organisation who accepts their (material) support, meaning that any org who willingly works with Meta also becomes a bad actor.
Is that fair or correct? I'm not sure that it is! But enough people think that it is, to the point that I dont think you can simply state that it isnt so, without solid arguments as to why.
@laurenshof Right. I think that's unsolvable in itself. Either the org doesn't work with Meta, in which case it leaves the biggest player on the existing social web on the table, or it's very transparent about its decision-making and operations. I don't see any other options.
