The exchange is about Meta’s upcoming ActivityPub-enabled network Threads. Meta is calling for a meeting, his response is priceless!
The exchange is about Meta’s upcoming ActivityPub-enabled network Threads. Meta is calling for a meeting, his response is priceless!
The main issue I take with this is saying it is off the record.
And non-disclosure mentioned. Will they be wanting participants to sign an NDA?
i haven’t seen any hard confirmation, but i believe one of these mastodon admin meetings has already happened and an nda was involved. this would be the second meeting.
That’s standard practice if you’re going to be talking about an unreleased product.
And our “standard practice” should be to say “fuck off” to that BS.
Such bravery coming from someone who sounds oh so employed.
stepping in a bit to say chill, this is a bit much of an accusation to make over what appears to be a pretty simple disagreement (which you’ve more constructively elaborated on downthread!)
All right. Well, TBF I’d rather “sound unemployed” (whatever that means) than sound like I’m shilling for big tech corporations and their predatory practices. shrug
Signing an NDA to talk about an unreleased product is not predatory, it’s standard practice for virtually any business (especially the kind inviting random people off the internet to see them). Many jobs require you to sign NDAs just to go through the interview process.
There is nothing gained by not going to the meeting with Meta, if they want to launch their Twitter clone they are more than capable of doing that regardless of whether or not this guy takes a meeting to hear them out. All he’s done is learned less about what they plan on doing leaving him less capable of taking the best course of action, and if you trust him to make the right decision then that’s objectively a bad thing.
Off the record doesn’t mean completely secret. And it doesn’t necessarily mean it will be under NDA (although it also happens sometimes). If anytime a major company is drawn to talk about a heated subject they get hammered by the news cycle and their stocks tank, or their investors get the shakes - they will stop coming to the table to discuss issues.
Off the record used to mean something in journalism. That’s the “off the record” I’m talking about. If Meta has something else in mind - take issue with it then. But give them the benefit of the doubt until then. “Off the record” gets shit done in a world of red tape, woke hysteria and cancel culture.
Now, although I’m not pro MetaBook, I’d rather they come to the table, even if I think they don’t do it in good faith. It means that they can be called on their bullshit, and get their response. Even if that response will not be quoted to the rest of us, or broadcast to the world to see - it’s better than the current situation, where people just speculate about what Meta’s public-facing, public-relations-sanitized statements actually mean.