Heads-up for any folks on hachyderm.io: I would recommend picking a different instance, as it seems likely that it'll get defederated from quite a few places at some point.
They seem to not only be happy with corporate accounts[1], but also apparently seek to "introduce trust with corporations" [and draw them to fedi?], which uhhhh yeah no.
This is a space for people, not for corporations. Let's not repeat the errors of the FOSS community (that eventually led to near-total corporate capture of FOSS) by inviting corporations into our spaces, not even "as long as they play nice".
[1] github.com/hachyderm/community…
community/corporate-accounts.md at main · hachyderm/community
Hachyderm Community Resources. Contribute to hachyderm/community development by creating an account on GitHub.GitHub
reshared this
duncan
in reply to Sven Slootweg • • •silverwizard
in reply to duncan • •It would be acceptable if we didn't have largish instances, and we didn't want to grow the community
"This person hosts corporate emails", wtf
Go defederate with Office365 and try to feel useful
JT Olio 🏳️🌈
in reply to Sven Slootweg • • •Sven Slootweg
in reply to JT Olio 🏳️🌈 • • •@jtolio That is your choice, of course - half the point of a federated network is that people can make that choice for themselves, so that's completely fine.
This is just a heads-up to let people know that that sort of policy is generally not appreciated in much of the fediverse (this is certainly not just about pixie.town), and so it is a likely reason for future defederation.
JT Olio 🏳️🌈
in reply to Sven Slootweg • • •Sven Slootweg
in reply to JT Olio 🏳️🌈 • • •@jtolio The problem that many folks have with corporations isn't that they're "not playing by the rules", though. It's that they *exist*, particularly in a community environment. There is no set of rules that can solve that problem.
Corporations will always, *always* act in their own best interest first, no matter how nice and hacker-y their outward communications may be, and no matter who runs the place. It is their reason for existence, part of the fundamental fabric of what makes a corporation a corporation.
In other words: they can never be genuine community participants, because they are always there for selfish reasons, not for the sake of the community. "Playing nice" just means that those reasons are more carefully disguised.
Thus: many people just don't want them here, regardless of the circumstances.
Sven Slootweg
in reply to Sven Slootweg • • •Can the corporate apologists kindly stop replying to this with some variation of "not all corporations are bad"?
You are not telling me anything I haven't heard a thousand times in my time on this earth, and there is a *reason* I am not considering it as a valid counterargument.
Maybe think about why that is, before assuming that I must just be clueless on the matter.
TheCoolest
Unknown parent • • •Sven Slootweg
Unknown parent • • •Ariadne Conill 🐰:therian:
Unknown parent • • •@nova
I guess I am fine with letting people make their own decisions rather than holding them to making only the decisions I would personally make.
Sven Slootweg
Unknown parent • • •Ariadne Conill 🐰:therian:
Unknown parent • • •@nova
re: wanting to try it anyway, I interpret it as her having faith in her friends to be able to conduct themselves (on behalf of their respective businesses) in a way that is aligned with her community's values.
I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.
Sven Slootweg
Unknown parent • • •@ariadne @nova The "benefit of the doubt" thing is more complicated for me.
I understand that the presence of corporation has become so embedded into culture, *particularly* in the US, that people could be (mis)led to believe that they are a necessary component of a social environment and therefore must be included in some way.
I'm not going to rake someone over the coals over that belief. That's also why my original post wasn't FediBlock-tagged.
But what bothers me is when people have been made aware of the problem, and *still* insist on "trying it out", and that is where my benefit of the doubt ends.
With the widely-documented harm that corporations as a concept do, any such attempt should come upfront with a clear justification as to why it is being attempted, and how it is different from the thousands of past failed attempts.
I have been unable to find any such justification in this case, and it not being proactively provided makes me highly skeptical that it is being attempted for the right reasons, or that the person attempting it *truly* understands the gravity of the problem.
Ariadne Conill 🐰:therian:
Unknown parent • • •@nova
i don't have an answer to that question, which is why i don't have such a policy on my instance.
i guess what i am saying is that i'm willing to extend some benefit of the doubt for this specific situation, that i probably wouldn't be willing to extend to
social.microsoft.comornordvpn.social.Sven Slootweg
Unknown parent • • •@ariadne @nova The "if one is to exist at all" is what I'm trying to get at. Considering that corporations are fundamentally hostile entities, what possible benefit could there be from allowing (and even inviting) them to embed in your community?
Like, we can keep talking about all the problems until the birdsite dies, but ultimately I still haven't seen a credible answer to "why would you even want to *consider* doing this in the first place"?
Ariadne Conill 🐰:therian:
Unknown parent • • •@nova
right, all of those points are valid criticisms for sure. any corporate account policy -- if one is to exist at all -- should begin from the position of zero tolerance for misconduct, and the conversation should end there.
Cassandrich
Unknown parent • • •