Wouldn’t the “extend” part be problematic for them since it’s W3C that define the protocol? If meta tries to change it it’d break compatibility with the rest of the federation. Not that it is that well defined right now, from what I’ve read even mastodon, kbin and lemmy all use AP in different ways, with upvotes/downvotes and post types being interpreted and used in different ways from the technical standpoint and then jury-rigged in frontend to look decent.
The fact that W3C defines the protocol doesn’t stop large companies from doing whatever they want. Have a look at Google: their web browser has become so widely adopted that Google effectively controls what is considered part of the spec, not W3C.
If Meta’s platform grows to become the biggest fediverse project, they will control the spec and others will either have to follow, or risk dropping out. This is just like how Firefox is forced to follow Google to ensure all websites work properly on Firefox, even if these sites don’t comply with the spec.
others will either have to follow, or risk dropping out
Honestly, they should. Drop out of the spec if Facebook gains control over it, I mean. Fuck em, I don’t care if I can’t federate with Instagram, in fact I prefer it that way.
Probably yeah, but then Meta will have made yet another walled garden, and for some reason so many people seem to really love Meta and they will stay there. Then we’ll be exactly where we are today. So the way I see it, this new plan from Meta means nothing, but I’m curious to see how things will go.
I think the major issue that people might be concerned about is they might try to use a carrot to get people reliant on their instances.
Then they start making breaking changes and integrating proprietary stuff into it so that it’s all much more closed source; and unless you’re on an instance that they control, now suddenly a lot of the people who you used to be able to talk to on the Fediverse just can’t be interacted with from your instance.
Like, the “World Wide Web” is the primary way people use to access the internet (we’re using it now!); but despite the W3C you’ll have commercial browsers that just don’t play nice with the standards and some websites that wind up, because of that, only working in commercial browsers (Internet Explorer was infamous for this, and apparently Chromium has its issues with this as well). You further see websites that’ll attract a huge userbase - using that open standard - and then kind of try to push everyone into using a non-WWW (but still internet!) app; meaning that what once you could have accessed from any web software you’re now restricted to one single option that’s beholden to the whims of that corporation. That’s not to say that any of these is what Facebook will do (I’m not actually concerned that they’re going to try to lock it behind an app; it’s just an example that I can think of, especially given the recent Reddit drama - Reddit is also trying to kill their mobile site and effectively move people on mobile from the open WWW standard to an app, and have made mobile painful for awhile; and they’re not the first site to add a “This site is better in our app” banner to mobile)
Of course, with the Fediverse they’d have a lot harder of a time doing that quickly without the cooperation of a few big instances. We aren’t really sure what the people who spoke to them have agreed to, but we do know that they signed NDAs meaning there’s something that Facebook doesn’t want them to talk about.
Personally if this really was something good that we shouldn’t be worried about? They should be able to be transparent about it. They’re not, and that’s concerning.
Honestly at the end of the day I’m just tired of people trying to make every single cent they can off of me. I want to live my life and have hobbies and talk to people and I’m tired of some greedy asshole taking a look at the tech and creativity that enables it and going “But how can I make money off of that?”
100% with you except for an NDA being synonym of something concerning. I mean of course we should be concerned, that’s out of the question, Meta is now about to start fediverse deforestation so they can build farm factories in its place. But companies nowadays use NDAs for about anything. I’ve signed some for job interviews and there was absolutely anything of concern that could have been leaked during the interviews. It’s just big company protocol.
So… kinda like Mastodon then?
Let’s not pretend that Mastodon hasn’t also implemented it’s own non standard things - such that if someone wants to make an app that works with Mastodon, it’s MORE than just the ActivityPub spec they have to follow - you will see this quite a lot now where platforms will say they are using ActivityPub and are also Mastodon compatible.
Wouldn’t the “extend” part be problematic for them since it’s W3C that define the protocol? If meta tries to change it it’d break compatibility with the rest of the federation. Not that it is that well defined right now, from what I’ve read even mastodon, kbin and lemmy all use AP in different ways, with upvotes/downvotes and post types being interpreted and used in different ways from the technical standpoint and then jury-rigged in frontend to look decent.
The fact that W3C defines the protocol doesn’t stop large companies from doing whatever they want. Have a look at Google: their web browser has become so widely adopted that Google effectively controls what is considered part of the spec, not W3C.
If Meta’s platform grows to become the biggest fediverse project, they will control the spec and others will either have to follow, or risk dropping out. This is just like how Firefox is forced to follow Google to ensure all websites work properly on Firefox, even if these sites don’t comply with the spec.
Honestly, they should. Drop out of the spec if Facebook gains control over it, I mean. Fuck em, I don’t care if I can’t federate with Instagram, in fact I prefer it that way.
Probably yeah, but then Meta will have made yet another walled garden, and for some reason so many people seem to really love Meta and they will stay there. Then we’ll be exactly where we are today. So the way I see it, this new plan from Meta means nothing, but I’m curious to see how things will go.
I think the major issue that people might be concerned about is they might try to use a carrot to get people reliant on their instances.
Then they start making breaking changes and integrating proprietary stuff into it so that it’s all much more closed source; and unless you’re on an instance that they control, now suddenly a lot of the people who you used to be able to talk to on the Fediverse just can’t be interacted with from your instance.
Like, the “World Wide Web” is the primary way people use to access the internet (we’re using it now!); but despite the W3C you’ll have commercial browsers that just don’t play nice with the standards and some websites that wind up, because of that, only working in commercial browsers (Internet Explorer was infamous for this, and apparently Chromium has its issues with this as well). You further see websites that’ll attract a huge userbase - using that open standard - and then kind of try to push everyone into using a non-WWW (but still internet!) app; meaning that what once you could have accessed from any web software you’re now restricted to one single option that’s beholden to the whims of that corporation. That’s not to say that any of these is what Facebook will do (I’m not actually concerned that they’re going to try to lock it behind an app; it’s just an example that I can think of, especially given the recent Reddit drama - Reddit is also trying to kill their mobile site and effectively move people on mobile from the open WWW standard to an app, and have made mobile painful for awhile; and they’re not the first site to add a “This site is better in our app” banner to mobile)
Of course, with the Fediverse they’d have a lot harder of a time doing that quickly without the cooperation of a few big instances. We aren’t really sure what the people who spoke to them have agreed to, but we do know that they signed NDAs meaning there’s something that Facebook doesn’t want them to talk about.
Personally if this really was something good that we shouldn’t be worried about? They should be able to be transparent about it. They’re not, and that’s concerning.
Honestly at the end of the day I’m just tired of people trying to make every single cent they can off of me. I want to live my life and have hobbies and talk to people and I’m tired of some greedy asshole taking a look at the tech and creativity that enables it and going “But how can I make money off of that?”
Some things shouldn’t be about money.
100% with you except for an NDA being synonym of something concerning. I mean of course we should be concerned, that’s out of the question, Meta is now about to start fediverse deforestation so they can build farm factories in its place. But companies nowadays use NDAs for about anything. I’ve signed some for job interviews and there was absolutely anything of concern that could have been leaked during the interviews. It’s just big company protocol.
So… kinda like Mastodon then?
Let’s not pretend that Mastodon hasn’t also implemented it’s own non standard things - such that if someone wants to make an app that works with Mastodon, it’s MORE than just the ActivityPub spec they have to follow - you will see this quite a lot now where platforms will say they are using ActivityPub and are also Mastodon compatible.