A user from lemmy.world claims that one of the admins had a secret meeting with a representative of Meta/Facebook. Original post was removed.
A user from lemmy.world claims that one of the admins had a secret meeting with a representative of Meta/Facebook. Original post was removed.
Crossposted this in case of takedown. Hope this isn't breaking the rules.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/1370464
Original Title: At least one lemmy.world admin accepted an off the record meeting with meta, and they won't tell you about it.
Edit: I cannot confirm if the Original OP is telling the truth or lying, figured I wanted more people to see this so you can decide for yourselves who to believe.
Edit 2: Archived Link: https://archive.is/aJrnU
Edit 3: Hmm... Interesting... The original post was taken down instead of admins making a response. I mean, if I were an admin with nothing to hide, I'd just simply say "I did not have a secret meeting with anyone representing Meta/Facebook" then maybe lock the thread if stuff gets too out of hand. Deleting a post is not the right thing to do, and even if you are innocent, now you just made yourself look bad.
Edit 4: I appreciate the fact that the mods elected to use the lock thread option instead of outright removing this post. I do not agree with your decision, but I respect the fact that you left this post up. Alright, so that's the end of this, hopefully the next time someone make accusations, they provide evidence. Also, if you are making a legitimate accusation, make sure to crosspost to different instances to make takedowns more difficult. So to conclude this, I want to state these facts:
-
The Original OP did not seem to have provided any evidence.
-
The Original Post was removed and the Original OP was banned from the community which the post was in.
-
None of the admins of lemmy.world made a statement in response to the accusations.
You can draw whatever conclusion you want from this. But without any further information, this discussion cannot continue any longer, since a mod has already locked this post.
Archive Link of where the page was, now showing an error message: https://archive.is/5BWIw
Don't belive me? Ask them.
Fosstodon admins were at least transparent and shared with their community when they were approached by meta for an off the record meeting, which was awesome. They also declined that meeting and shared screenshots of them doing so.
But lemmy.world admins won't tell you that at least one of them accepted that same meeting request. Why won't they say that?
Tell your community that you accepted a meeting with meta. Thats not wrong in and of itself, but I feel it is shady/not right when you're communicating about a wait-and-see approach, while having meetings with the company in question yet not being transparent about it.
@ruud@lemmy.world care to comment?
Also, I'm spinning up my own instance because I don't trust this platform to folks who aren't transparent. Don't ask me to join, it's going to be just for me for now. I don't even know that I have time to admin an instance, but my trust is wearing thin based on the facts at hand. So, it's what I'm doing.
You're viewing a single thread.
What a ridiculous attempt at stirring a pot. Not only is it someone saying something that cannot be proven, but someone quoting someone saying something that cannot be proven….
What if I were to spread it around that this is all a ploy from Reddit to fuck with the lemmy community and cause drama?
Embarrassing.
OP is asking for confirmation in an announcement - Copy pasting from my comment here
All that matters about the OPs claim is that the admins need to say they aren’t contracted with meta, but they haven’t, which is damning evidence that they have signed at least one contract with Meta.
It’s simple logic.
- Lies or truths about an NDA silenced meeting with Mastodon admins.
- Extrapolating that idea that an NDA may exist or have been signed onto all instance admins
- Asking for a statement from the admins proving that there are no NDAs in place with Meta by the lemmy.world admins
Then reliable absolute silence about being contracted or not with Meta.
So if they don’t say they didn’t when asked if they did, then ipso facto, they did?
I don’t think you or anyone gets to make that distinction. And the fact that you think you can, illustrates how this is an attempt at creating drama.
How about this:
Maybe it’s a dumb fucking question that they don’t feel obligated to answer? I mean, I would imagine that it’s damn near insulting to them to feel they have any reason to answer such a stupid and irrelevant question as it’s not up to you how they manage their instance.
So yea. It’s purposefully stirring a pot. So stop.
The OP seemed desperate for confirmation before he felt compelled to leave. He was talking rationally in his post.
If you have an entire secret meeting that's NDA enforced, then you literally cannot speak about the existence or your participation in it legally.
As a server admin, he should really be on top of stuff like this. It'd be a fairly quick thing to mention, and the fact that he didn't means he likely signed an NDA. He doesn't NEED to prove it, but everyone should turn their backs on him for not CHOOSING to prove it(because he likely cannot legally).
Many people came here to escape exactly what is now happening. There will obviously be passionate people venting or trying to understand this. The people that are on your side though, tend to fight dirty and say invalid things. Meta is evil, i don't want to be near it, a contract with meta starts the death of a thousand cuts, and people wont remember what we are saying when they finally leave.
Meta is stirring the pot, the admins are. If i just knew they stood against what the average FOSS server stands for in their FAQ or something I would have never gone there, and neither would the people complaining. I can't stress just how bad this is, but most people don't know the deeper political/corporate side of this.
I'm not starting convos about this anymore, just replying to other comments and the likes. I'd rather we get some basic transparency from the admins nearby, but I already left over it because of it.
It’s absolutely stirring a pot and its in bad faith. But I’m not creating posts all over and cross posting nonsense because of it.
It’s none of anyone’s fucking business what they do with their instance. None. Period. Done.
Dude said he denied a meeting. I believe him. If someone else didn’t- I don’t fucking care. And I think the fact that this matters so much to you should be a clear indication that you need a hobby. It’s a social media site. Nothing more.
Stop taking this shit so seriously.
You are the one acting in bad faith and i suspect you don't actually know what that means. I'm not denying that I'm also stirring the pot.
You are correct that its up to their admins, I would just prefer a bit of a mission statement making it more obvious they have corporate ambitions.
Dude said he denied a meeting. I believe him. If someone else didn’t- I don’t fucking care. And I think the fact that this matters so much to you should be a clear indication that you need a hobby. It’s a social media site. Nothing more.When did he deny? I haven't been checking other posts lately. Link please
I'm done with replying in this post, If you don't give a link then you are the one acting in bad faith.
Go touch some grass, kid.
Nah I get to make that distinction
Ok buddy. If you say so. Slow day on Reddit or something?
I ain't your fucking buddy
Okay, pal. If that makes you feel better.
People using an instance that appears to try to act and communicate transparently and asks for donations from the community to run the platform, should actually be transparent in my opinion.
People can just go somewhere else, and no one is obligated to say or do anything, but users appear to value transparency, and I feel as a collective we should value open and honest discussion about issues like this rather than shutting it down or being confrontational or argumentative or rude about it.
It might be nothing, it might be something: either way, people are entitled to feel they deserve to be kept informed. Whether they are entitled to or not is a different kettle of fish.