veganism.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Veganism Social is a welcoming space on the internet for vegans to connect and engage with the broader decentralized social media community.

Administered by:

Server stats:

134
active users

#fedipact

1 post1 participant1 post today

Like many others of you on here, I'm just sad and tired of people migrating from Twitter to #Bluesky or #Threads, just to be predictably disappointed. Surprised pikachu face and all that.

Do so many people just lack critical thinking skills? Are they mentally lazy?

Even on the fediverse though, support for the #FediPact isn't exactly strong, with many instances just federating with known bad actors.

Fediverse, can you help? I'm growing weary of constantly fighting this fight in my campaign groups and seeking other effective articles and resources to tackle antifascists' justifications for remaining on Twitter and such because "we must go where people are." You can call it a Nazi bar, but their counter is "a bunch of us are still on there and we aren't Nazis." Sigh. Thanks in advance! #AskMastodon #AskFedi #Fediverse #FediPact #FuckElon #FuckZuckerberg @fedizine

Actually, I'd say one of the problems with Fedi is being aware of the behaviour of instances, which instance is best for which type of posting, which instances should be avoided for which reasons.

You have instances that signed up to #FediPact but it isn't clear what that is just from the name and you have to ask or research to find out what that means.

I suppose it's a bit like not seeing the wood for the trees. There isn't really a digest of Fedi politics that users can look at and make decisions from - at least I don't think there is, and if there is, the fact I am unaware of it kind of supports my case.

I think a kind of digest that everyone refers to would be useful. Something to explain disagreements or explain what's going on, something to explain why many instances are turning against other instance, etc.

Continued thread

Most Facebook executives didn't allow their own children on Facebook - according to Ms Wynn-Williams. "They had screen bans. They certainly wouldn't allow them to use the product."

And yet she says reports from 2017 - that the company had been using algorithms to target and categorise vulnerable teens - were true.

"The algorithm could infer that they were feeling worthless or unhappy," she alleges.

The company - which also owns Instagram and WhatsApp - could, she claims, identify when a teenage girl had deleted a selfie on its platforms, and then notify a beauty company that it would be a good moment to target the child with an advert.

Ms Wynn-Williams says she "felt sick" at the thought and tried to push back, "although I knew it was futile".

bbc.com/news/articles/cly820v9

www.bbc.comFacebook ‘worked hand in glove’ with China, claims ex-directorSocial media company considered letting Beijing control content for access to its lucrative market, BBC told.

Ms Wynn-Williams claims that in the mid-2010s, as part of its negotiations with the Chinese government, Facebook considered allowing it future access to Chinese citizens' user data.

"He was working hand in glove with the Chinese Communist Party, building a censorship tool…"

'Ms Wynn-Williams says governments frequently asked for explanations of how aspects of Facebook's software worked, but were told it was proprietary information.

"But when it came to the Chinese, the curtain was pulled back," she says.

"Engineers were brought out. They were walked through every aspect, and Facebook was making sure these Chinese officials were upskilled enough that they could not only learn about these products, but then test Facebook on the censorship version of these products that they were building."

bbc.com/news/articles/cly820v9

www.bbc.comFacebook ‘worked hand in glove’ with China, claims ex-directorSocial media company considered letting Beijing control content for access to its lucrative market, BBC told.