although this is unlikely to substantially and directly impact us and is a more immediate concern for Mastodon and similar fediverse software, we’ve signed the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact as a matter of principle. that pact pledges the following:

i am an instance admin/mod on the fediverse. by signing this pact, i hereby agree to block any instances owned by meta should they pop up on the fediverse. project92 is a real and serious threat to the health and longevity of fedi and must be fought back against at every possible opportunity

the maintainer of the site is currently a little busy and seems to manually add signatures so we may not appear on there for several days but here’s a quick receipt that we did indeed sign it.

  • Gaywallet (they/it)@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    While I appreciate the analogy, the electoral college is a seriously broken system which hasn’t protected proportional representation in a long, long time.

    • Ertebolle@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh certainly; my point was simply that in a system where population = influence, letting in a new group with several times as many people as all of your existing groups put together means that that new group effectively takes over.

      • BobQuasit@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        And yet even if India did join the United States as the 51st state, It occurs to me that the billionaires and corporations would still be in charge. Which is to say, although the huge population of Meta is a concern, I fear the power of Mark Zuckerberg’s billions far more.

    • Bdking158@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The electoral college was never intended to protect proportional representation. The whole idea of equal representation in the Senate was to avoid high population states running roughshod over the smaller ones. This obviously dilutes the influence of higher population states and amplifies the smaller ones at the electoral college.

      The system is not broken though. It does exactly what it was originally intended to do 240 years ago. You just don’t agree with it’s intention and results

      • Gaywallet (they/it)@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The electoral college was never intended to protect proportional representation.

        Article 1 of the constitution very clearly lays out how electors are supposed to be chosen and establishes the need for a census to reflect the population’s growth. To say that the house is not supposed to have proportional representation while the senate represents non-proportional representation as a counterbalance is ignoring the long history of debate and the many laws passed to attempt to bring representation in the house in proportion with the population.

        The system is broken. We do not know the ‘original intent’ and anyone trying to argue for constitutional originalism is either completely ignorant of how literally everything changes with time or trying to enforce their conservative ideals through a guise of legitimacy.

        But this isn’t really the right place to have this discussion (we’re on a thread about defederating from meta) so I’m gonna withdraw now and not reply to any more responses about this.

      • blivet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Each state gets a number of electors equal to its congressional representation (senators plus representatives). If the number of representatives weren’t capped it would go a long way towards making the Electoral College more representative of the population.