Again, you’re not actually making an argument about meta doing anything to make the fediverse worse than it is, you’re not even arguing that metas actions in those other situations are directly applicable and will happen here, you’re just saying “look at these bad things that Meta did before, sure other bad things must happen”.
That is the literal textbook definition of a FUD argument.
Well look, I don’t have enough insight into the design or backend for Lemmy or mastodon, but Facebook has heavily invested into their network, and likely aims to grow.
How could they do that? All of this seems blockable on the client end (meaning I’m not good/shitty enough to work at Facebook) but imagine:
an algorithm takes a selection of high ranking fb posts and cross-posts to Lemmy, far faster and more frequently than regular users. Oh, you’ll need to login to read.
threads could wholesale repost other users and their comments, but behind a threads login wall
Basically do some scummy behavior using our public statements, questions and comments, all to get more attention devoted to what’s happening on their site (and its associated ads).
There’s no good product that Meta has ever touched that’s been made better after their involvement. Why go for bat for a company that has consistently shown it’s goal is to make things worse for the end user?
Let’s flip this around: Show me a thing that Meta has touched that hasn’t turned to shit. Why risk the same fate when we don’t have to? What is meta bringing to the table that would warrant foolhardiness on our part?
See the opposite of FUD is naivete, hubris, make-believe, not something one wants to be engaged in either.
Again, you’re not actually making an argument about meta doing anything to make the fediverse worse than it is, you’re not even arguing that metas actions in those other situations are directly applicable and will happen here, you’re just saying “look at these bad things that Meta did before, sure other bad things must happen”.
That is the literal textbook definition of a FUD argument.
Well look, I don’t have enough insight into the design or backend for Lemmy or mastodon, but Facebook has heavily invested into their network, and likely aims to grow.
How could they do that? All of this seems blockable on the client end (meaning I’m not good/shitty enough to work at Facebook) but imagine:
Basically do some scummy behavior using our public statements, questions and comments, all to get more attention devoted to what’s happening on their site (and its associated ads).
There’s no good product that Meta has ever touched that’s been made better after their involvement. Why go for bat for a company that has consistently shown it’s goal is to make things worse for the end user?
Let’s flip this around: Show me a thing that Meta has touched that hasn’t turned to shit. Why risk the same fate when we don’t have to? What is meta bringing to the table that would warrant foolhardiness on our part?
See the opposite of FUD is naivete, hubris, make-believe, not something one wants to be engaged in either.