• whoami@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      Same reason I am highly critical of Jack Dorsey’s BlueSky and its attempt at rolling out a separate protocol. The last thing we need is for the Fediverse to be fragmented into a dozen protocols that do things ever-so-slightly differently and prevent network convergence.

      • varjen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        Another reason to avoid it is that Jack Dorsey supports known anti-vaxxer and general conspiracy kook Robert F Kennedy Jr. Not the kind of people I’d want to run my social network.

        • vluhd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s bonkers, I don’t even see what there is about the man to support. He’s just an amalgam of nonsense conspiracies.

          • cottard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            My boomer parents unironically think he’s the best politician since sliced bread for the last few weeks.

      • fross@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is very easy to argue that network convergence is NOT a good thing. That’s the whole point of the “embrace, extended, destroy” point you responded to.

        • whoami@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The point being is that inventing a new protocol is either a case of Not-Invented-Here syndrome or an attempt to fragment the ecosystem - hence jumping straight into the extinguish phase. It does not paint BlueSky as a good actor in this race - especially as there are no substantial improvements over ActivityPub as far as I can tell.

    • Kushan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s worth pointing out that the wiki article lists several examples of Microsoft using this approach but I wouldn’t class many of them as successful.

      • Steeve@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not only was it not very successful, it’s an old outdated Microsoft playbook from the 90s/early 00s and was targeted at closed source competitors and freeware, not open source software where you can just fork out a separate version.

        By all means block Meta instances if you want, but they have 3 billion users, they definitely don’t give a shit about a “competitor” with a few hundred thousand users. If simply the presence of a corporation in the Fediverse is enough to destroy it, then it wasn’t going to last long anyways. It’s embarassing that “embrace, extend, extinguish” caught on around here just because it’s a catchy alliteration.

        • catastrophicblues@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          Let me offer a rebuttal. The fact that this playbook even exists and is well-known is a cause for concern. Yes, Microsoft’s campaign wasn’t very successful, but that doesn’t mean Meta won’t try or learn from Microsoft’s mistakes. I ask: is the probability of this happening non-zero, and if so, is it lower than you’re comfortable with? For me, and many others here, that answer is no.

          Moreover, this is a greater problem: Meta is well-known and has practically infinite marketing budget. They can spin their app as the de facto, causing many people to lose control of their data. By association, some people will blame the Fediverse and not Meta. Defederating signals that we are not willing to participate with them and tells potential Fediverse users that they will not be able to engage with us—and whatever they decide, we cannot impact more.

          The crux of my argument is risk management. Defederated is a conservative measure to prevent possible issues in the future.

          • Steeve@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Honestly this is just pure paranoia because nobody has given a solid reason as to why they would give a single shit about the few hundred thousand users here. Your only argument is “well it exists, so maaaybe they’ll use it but better” which has no basis. As for losing control of your data, you have no control of your data here. It’s public information. Any person, corporation, computer literate cat, etc can already scrape everything you post here. Don’t mistake anonymity for data privacy.

            Like I said, block em, defederate, whatever measures you want to take are an option, but for the love of god let’s just stop parroting nonsense at eachother because it sounds clever. I came here to get away from reddit culture.

            • PopularUsername@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              I just wanted to say, I am by no means technical but your position is exactly what I was thinking, if an open source project can’t survive when it’s competitors start using it, then it’s never going to survive. The whole point is for it to be interoperable, resilient, and antifragile, and there are plenty of open source projects that achieved that. Competitors switching over to open source is a natural progression of any open source project if one assumes it is successful.

        • app_priori@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly. Which is why I believe that all this fearmongering is because of Meta’s reputation (rightfully so) rather than because Meta actually has a plan to destroy the fediverse. And it’s not the like the fediverse can be actually destroyed, people can always start new instances at any time.

          • massacre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            My take was that most people 1) don’t want Meta/Facebook spam - low effort memes, propaganda, etc. and 2) don’t want their content to be used by Meta. The former seems pretty easy - just defederate and you don’t see any of their crap. The second is sort of a gray area… Whether or not you are diametrically opposed to Meta/Facebook or not, once you post your content to a public site, it’s available. I haven’t been here long, but defederation seems to work both ways, so FB would have to scrape content from known instances to get that content unless I’m mistaken.

            FB could smoke any instance by DDOSing scrapes whether intended or otherwise, but once you post your data on a public forum, Meta could theoretically use it.

            But to your comment - I don’t see what starting a new instance would do for anyone for #2. Any new instance is discoverable by nature, so FB can come knocking at any time for content whether you defederate or not.

            • app_priori@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago
              1. As if Lemmy currently isn’t overrun with low effort memes? Have you seen all those cans of beans running amok here?
              2. I imagine there are many parties already scraping content from the fediverse as we speak - that’s the nature of public web content.
            • Lemmino@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              As far as (1) goes, 90% of the content on Lemmy is just a Lemmy circlejerk, the remaining 10% is memes. What influx of “low effort content” could possibly make the discussions on Lemmy worse than they already are?

              As far as (2) goes, you realize your data on Lemmy is open to everyone to scrape, not just Meta? Every single one of your upvotes is public.

        • redcalcium@c.calciumlabs.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          By all means block Meta instances if you want, but they have 3 billion users, they definitely don’t give a shit about a “competitor” with a few hundred thousand users.

          If they don’t give a shit then why do they add federation feature at all? It doesn’t make sense.

          • Steeve@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            Right now it’s only supported for Instagram accounts right? So slap in ActivityPub and you’ve got an already working way to extend your app. It’s easy, it’s fast development, and it’s cheap. It makes tons of sense.

            Also, Meta and the rest of FAANG are a company of a bunch of nerds with a history of open sourcing software. This isn’t some crazy play, this is completely normal for them.

            • dumpsterlid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah and it’s also normal for them to act like sociopaths and shrug and say “sorry, this is just how capitalism works” when it gets exposed how cynically awful they been behaving.

              There is zero evidence ethics will be followed here, Silicon Valley has spent decades building a good argument the precise opposite will happen.

              • Steeve@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                What does ethics have to do with any of this? Like you said, it’s all capitalism. The total amount of users in the fediverse is a rounding error on their 10-K. Why would they care about stealing the userbase?

                Corporations don’t act ethically unless they can monetize it or they’re regulated.

                • wtfeweguys@lemmy.whynotdrs.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Counterpoint: it’s not about capturing the current audience so much as heading a threat off at the pass.

                  I’m not going to argue way or other re: defederation. Just putting myself in their shoes and looking at the field they’re entering. They likely recognize there’s a brief window right now to capture twitter’s disaffected audience as they stumble while a nontrivial subset of those users are exploring open-source, non-corporate alternatives.

                  It makes perfect sense for them to cast the widest net they can in this moment. And it also makes sense for them to try to stifle the non-corporate side before it has a chance to gain any solid footing.

        • GeckoEidechse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not only was it not very successful, it’s an old outdated Microsoft playbook from the 90s/early 00s and was targeted at closed source competitors and freeware, not open source software where you can just fork out a separate version.

          In Microsoft’s case I agree. However Google successfully used EEE to essentially kill of XMPP where they initially added XMPP support to Google Talk, then extended it with their own features which weren’t up to spec, and then later killed off XMPP support.

          • Steeve@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            So when’s extinguish come in? XMPP still exists, google dropping support didn’t kill XMPP, it just doesn’t work with their app anymore. They weren’t trying to kill XMPP, they were just going what Google does and dropping projects as soon as they aren’t profitable.

            • GeckoEidechse@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes XMPP still exists but I’d argue compared to previously standard XMPP is no longer as widely spread. Where as previously you would have people talking to each other over different XMPP services, that kind of federation no longer exists. For example WhatsApp supports XMPP but good luck trying to talk to WhatsApp from another client.

              • Steeve@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                XMPP was never popular to begin with, because it’s a messaging service that relies on the people close to you using it, which was rare before Google Talk integrated. Corporate run apps brought direct and indirect usage, you can’t argue this is an overall loss when they pulled away from XMPP, at worst it’s the same as if they never integrated. The same is true for ActivityPub, whether everyone defederates or blocks Meta instances now or they stop supporting ActivityPub later makes no tangible difference.

              • void@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I went to university in the 2000s at a smallish German Technical University. Rarely anyone used jabber. What literally everybody in the early 2000s was using was ICQ. Every dorm had ethernet, everybody had a PC and everybody had ICQ running 24/7. The ones not living on campus were peer pressured into getting DSL (which was still uncommon elsewhere).

                Then came Facebook, and suddenly all those ICQ contacts were gone. Still, rarely anyone used jabber, only those who didn’t like Facebook. I didn’t know a single person who was on Google Talk.

                Then came Android, iOS and Whatsapp, and that’s what „killed“ XMPP, because XMPP was so not ready for mobile networks.

        • pentobarbital@vlemmy.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          If they don’t give a shit about the fediverse why do they want to join it? Only Facebook can win from this.

          • Steeve@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Easy integration outside Instagram. They’re rushing to market to head off Twitter and the app only works for Instagram users, way easier to extend that by integrating open source software than rebuilding their own proprietary software from scratch. They can win without destroying it.

        • DrQuint@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Thank you for this article. It shows exactly what’s Facebook’s plan. They will join in, make their own implementation that doesn’t work well, pass the blame to the other platforms that use the protocol*, which in turn pressures them to debug and slow down themselves around Facebook’s stuff, and then they cut them off entirely.

          The correct attitude is to extinguish Facebook now. They’re not welcome.

          *And yes, this would work. Users are absolutely gullible about this shit, even without ever being told anything directly. Look at Apple users and their blue/green speech bubble thing. Every single flaw with the system is Apple’s fault - but the dumbass cultminded users see the green speechbubble and blame the other users for the flaws, not Apple. They literally just did the stupid tribalism comic and it worked.

          • acupofcoffee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not going to say you are wrong, but I have yet to meet a single fucking person that actually cares about bubble colors.

            I hear this parroted so often, but never see it myself. Didn’t see it when all I had used was Android devices, didn’t see it when I tried an iPhone and got involved in their own communities.

          • Tag365@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Wait, so Apple intentionally made iOS messages highly incompatible with Android users?

        • Steeve@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          XMPP still exists. Google dropped support for it, that’s definitely not killing it. Google drops support for projects all the time by the way, it’s kind of their thing.

          • Ekkosangen@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            Google dropping support for XMPP is what put it one foot in the grave. They abused the protocol to gain the lion’s share of users for Google Talk, and then cut off any resistance that remained. It exists still, technically, but when’s the last time you heard about or used it? I only know about it because EVE Online players used it for large group text communication before Discord became a thing.

            XMPP still exists in the same way that critically endangered animals still exist: barely and by the adamant will of some dedicated few.

            • Steeve@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              XMPP wasn’t even remotely popular until Google integrated with it, I tried Jabber back in the day lol. Google brought the users it lost, you can’t argue this was an attempt to kill it. At worst it’s the same as before Google integrated.

              • pentobarbital@vlemmy.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s the problem though. If XMPP had grew organically then it would fare much better. With how it happened, XMPP’s growth was mostly because of Google, and that put a lot of pressure to other servers and the protocol’s development to cater to them, because they had the majority of the users in their platform.

                • Steeve@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  This is pure speculation at best, but since we’re speculating I strongly disagree. The internet overall didn’t care about open source software in the early 00s, and most people still don’t today. Corporate freeware that can spend more on a polished product is going to win over the general population every time.

                • Lemmino@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It is absurd to think XMPP would have gained traction without Google. And it is an objectively shitty protocol, so Google dropping it was the right move. It is kind of weird to see people holding up Google dropping XMPP as some horrifying example of embrace, extend, extinguish, when anyone that’s actually developed software with the protocol wants it to die in a burning fire.

            • yaaaaayPancakes@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              App I work on, we’re replacing XMPP with messages over push/rest/websocket. XMPP is not fun to use compared to newer stuff.

              • Pika@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                enthusiast dev here, can vouch, having to make a XMPP library for myself for a bot I ran, I HATE the protocol with a burning passion, it’s weird and not how you would expect it to be. I’m sure the complexity of the standard didn’t help against its downfall. That being said, fully think that it will be harmful in the longrun of Activity Pub for Meta to be jumping in. but there will be some enthusiasts that still use it regardless.

      • themizarkshow@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s partly because of actions taken by various governments. Who knows what tech would look like today if Microsoft from the 90s forced us all into Internet Explorer.

        Also, more successful examples would be Google. They have done this very thing several times but then keep messing it up lol

    • OverfedRaccoon 🦝@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It looks like articles today are saying that Meta is delaying integrating ActivityPub at launch.

      That said, I’m not seeing how we get to the last E, extinguish. By its very nature, ActivityPub is decentralized to avoid total control. So even if Meta embraces the technology and wants to monetize it (because capitalism, of course), extending ActivityPub would (hypothetically) be open source - or they would fork it, diverging and making their version closed, and otherwise not function in full with other ActivityPub instances (like with kbin, Lemmy, and Mastodon). Without buying the platform from the developers in full, I don’t see how ActivityPub or the greater Fediverse dies. And I could just be missing something obvious, so if you can explain how we get there, I would really like to hear and understand.

      I guess the only way I could see it is if Threads got so popular that people literally stopped using the other apps - but I also don’t see that happening, because anyone already using stuff like Mastodon are using it because Twitter, Facebook, etc, suck ass and they’ve moved away from sites like that.

      EDIT: Thanks to the one person that actually replied, I saw I was on the right track at the end, but failed to see the obvious (as I assumed).

      • blueshades@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s hard to predict but the extinguish part would come from bigger non-Threads instances implementing compatibility with Thread-only extensions (in the interest of their users, or for money) and fragmenting the community. Threads then becomes the defacto ActivityPub standard. Maybe some instances stay true to the standard but with extremely reduced communities because now they can’t see what other instances are publishing. So now you have to decide between your ideals and your social network. At best, you’re back to square 0.

        • Hotzilla@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          It happens in the extend part.

          Large corporation will have much more resources, they will implement features and refactoring, which small open source teams do not have capability to implement. They will start pulling users because they support features that other do not.

          This also means that they will start getting control.

          And then finally they just cut the communication, and split the community. All the way they can claim to be working “for the community”

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It happens in the extend part.

            This is it right here.

            If you need a real-world example look at the original web browsers:

            NCSA Mosaic (the very first web browser) fully supported what would be later known as HTTP verison .9 . There was universal compatibility because there was only one browser supporting HTTP. Later Netscape Navigator would come on the scene and add functionality that was not supported in Mosaic (like the <blink> tag for example), but nothing hugely breaking page views between the two browsers.

            Fast forward to Internet Explorer v3, v4 and v5 where MS would not only show all the pages that the prior browsers would, but they EXTENDED by letting HTML still work without following all the same standards. It was easier to write pages for IE than it was to the specification. Then EXTENDED again by MS added ActiveX to web sites meaning now ONLY MS IE could display these pages, and for a time that meant only Windows computers could. This is the Extinguish part.

            The “Extend” step gets adopted because its attractive to users.

            Here’s a non-computer analogy:

            Lets say your current car get 25MPG. Now lets says that Shell come out with a gasoline that would let your same car go 40MPG with zero changes. Just buy Shell gas now at nearly the same price as anyone else’s and you get significantly more range. Most people would do it. Moreover, Shell buys Honda and starts manufacturing cars designed to work on that same new Shell gas could go 60mpg with even more power! So when you go to buy your next car 5 years later after using the gas, you don’t want to turn down 60MPG with more power. That Shell/Honda looks very attractive! All this time all the other gas stations have been going out of business because few people want to pay nearly the same amount for gasoline that only gets a fraction of the range. In the end, ONLY Shell gasoline is being sold, and nearly everyone drives a Shell/Honda to get the most benefit. This is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

            • redcalcium@c.calciumlabs.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Took us a while to shake off IE monopoly, only to squander it and now we have chromium (and to lesser extend, WebKit) monopoly. It’s not as horrible as the IE monopoly yet, but we’re currently in the “extend” stage here with Google forcing standard that benefits them and inconveniences their competitors.

              • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                but we’re currently in the “extend” stage here with Google forcing standard that benefits them and inconveniences their competitors.

                A tiny bit, but I don’t think its the same thing. First, the web runs fine without Chrome. Firefox is proof of that. Second, the source code is Open Source for at least a version of Chrome, so if Google does silly stuff like trying to Extend, we can (and have) make our own version cutting that garbage out and compiling our own.

                • redcalcium@c.calciumlabs.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, but it doesn’t solve browser monoculture issue where webdevs only target chromium/webkit when building their apps, which slowly kill firefox and make it much harder for a new browser engine tech to compete. When other browser engines are dead, the web “standard” will be fully controlled by google. No amount of forking will help because the web consortium is controlled by the big browser makers, and when firefox dies (and mozilla dies), it will be fully controlled by corporation (google), with microsoft and apple playing some minor roles without mozilla because mozilla actually has quite a big influence in the consortium despite its smaller userbase.

            • Maiznieks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I actually witnessed IE’s rise, leaving netscape navigator and opera in dust, and then open source phoenix (later firefox) rising from ashes, steadily taking back user share. Google chrome took a good chunk too and by that time IE was done and desperate enough to give in and use chromium framework.

              There was a point in time I thought it’s impossible, the close source monstrosity with neverending standards incompatibilities will stay on quick launchers forever but it did not. What a journey.

            • Tag365@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Anyone here remembered that Internet Explorer is Evil! site? The person who made that website complained about those tactics such as the ActiveX stuff and also made fun of Microsoft for doing it.

          • Bilb!@lem.monster
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            It doesn’t seem at all plausible to me that meta threads will pull users away from mastodon/pleroma/misskey/etc. though. If they “extend” the federation protocol to the point they become incompatible with the rest of these implementations, they will just go away and we’re back to where we were before they started federating.

            • cerevant@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              They don’t pull users away from the competition, they grow their own user base much faster than the competition, the result being that most of the popular content is on their platform. If you want to follow that celebrity/ influencer / news organization/ sports reporter/ politician, you need to join threads.

                • cerevant@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  And if people weren’t looking for a reason to leave Twitter, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The point is that this is how decentralized / open standards have been broken and made proprietary in the past.

            • fluxion@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Some users will be used to their content by then and may be tempted to move to their platform.

              There’s also the tons of news users interested in the Fediverse who get sucked into the marketing of “big tech + Fediverse” and basically just getting slurped up into some inevitable twitter sequel. So it’s existing users and potential new users.

              • dumpsterlid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Exactly it’s like selling junk food marketed as health food, you can say it doesn’t stop anyone from eating healthy food but if the junk food is marketed as healthy food (looking at you sugary cereals) than it can steal positive energy from the healthy food movement, gain a false sense of healthiness via associating itself with legitimately healthy food, and distract or disillusion vast swathes of people from actually trying healthy food in the first place.

                Techbros being like “we should let tech companies try again (?!?) to make a non-toxic thing out of our idea” is just another case of relatively smart people being dumb af about their privilege because let’s face it, a lot of this is just resume building or a DIY hobby for these folks. They don’t have the same things to lose that trans, black, queer or any other harassed/targeted minority has in coming here. They don’t have a horse in the game whether legitimate communities win or awful corporations do, they still win in the end because both use social media software though the latter pays much better….

            • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Dosen’t need to actively “stole” users from the other communities, but if new users have to choose between the independent supported and development instances and the corporate supported with marketing and flashy UI they are going to choose the corporate one. Eventually the great majority of users are under meta’s control and the content is generated there, and you better start complying or get defederated by meta.

        • chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          i.e.: The IE approach. Take an open standard (HTML), then fill in the gaps it’s missing with proprietary components (ActiveX), wait until your solutions become entrenched, then start doing evil stuff (implementing HTML slightly wrong so that developers have to do extra work to support compliant browsers).

          • Cras@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Right, and that’s exactly how IE/Edge is the one globally dominant browser it is today. Oh no, wait, that’s the very standards compliant Chrome

            • chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              ·
              1 year ago

              Wow, you really got me there. I had no idea that IE was no longer the dominant browser by usershare. That 13-year stretch of singular dominance may as well have never happened at all since it didn’t literally last forever 🙄

              And… yes, Chrome is very standards compliant, isn’t it? Isn’t it great how they publish excellent standards like FLoC & Manifest V3 without any regard for pushback from external vendors & web engineers? It’s a very not evil thing that they’re doing with their very not entrenched product.

              • redcalcium@c.calciumlabs.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Yes, google, the beacon of privacy, has decided to cancel FLoC. See? Google is actually listening to the web community’s plea. What’s that in the latest version of Chrome just released globally a few weeks ago? Ad Topics? No, it’s totally unrelated to FLoC, no need to worry about that, for realsies!

                • chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Google argues that it is mandatory that it builds a user tracking and advertising system into Chrome, and the company says it won’t block third-party cookies until it accomplishes that.

                  The internet is saved thanks to Google’s commitment to pushing forward with new standards

    • Magiwarriorx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I doubt that is the plan. The Fediverse is tiny, even after the recent growth. Prior to June it was basically just Mastodon, and I doubt Meta is agile enough to start this from scratch in response to the June growth. This is a lot of effort to take down a competitor that’s widely considered to be rough around the edges, and is only just now hitting 2m active monthly users.

      Realistically Threads has been in the works for a while as a way to eat Twitter’s market share while Twitter destroys itself. I suspect they see value in the ActivityPub protocol in the same way Yahoo saw value in email in the 90s. Regardless of whether EEE is their intention or not, Meta’s presence in the Fediverse is going to have major implications for its long term stability.

      EDIT: on further reflection, I suspect the value they see is pressuring other would-be competitors to also implement ActivityPub. I suspect they do genuinely want to grow the Fediverse… because doing so would increase the amount of data they could collect and sell from it.

      • Hotzilla@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        On embrace phase the intention is not malicious, they probably want things to grow. Corporations just in long run will eventually lead to someone asking “how can we capitalize this” and this lead the FOSS part of things to be cut out, and destroying the protocol at that point.

        Fediverse should defederate every corporation and just grow naturally.

  • f4te@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    1 year ago

    i’ll join the voices saying this is bad for the fediverse, and bad for users in general. there are LOTS of normie users who are joining threads who will be shut off from learning about all the cool other servers if everyone blocks them. this will mean users who want to interact with them need to sign up on Threads, which is what we don’t want.

    what we want is that users on Threads see other servers, learn that they’re better, and migrate over.

    don’t block Threads, show them how much better we are.

  • DanseMacabre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Threads being in the Fediverse is a plus for me, not a negative. It means I could follow regular people and friends who would never in a million years join places like Mastodon or Lemmy while I still get the benefits of being on those platforms, all while being shielded from Meta’s ads and data harvesting. The only issue is I don’t actually believe Zuck will go through with it. They’ll either never federate or severely limit it if they do.

    Mastodon themselves have put out a post outlining how this will affect them (it won’t) and how EEE is not a threat. If Meta does eventually opt out of ActivityPub then cool. It’s not like that’s why Mastodon users were there in the first place.

    • The Menemen!@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      1 year ago

      Embrace, extend and destroy is a known, well established, concept. Microsoft was quite open about how this is to be done.

      It has already happened to established decentralised networks. See here!

      Maybe it won’t happen to Mastodon, maybe they have the masterminds who can counter it. But it is imo pretty clear that this is what Meta plans to do.

      • GONADS125@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        1 year ago

        Read their privacy policy. They already admitted they will scrape info from 3rd party users/communities which interact with their users.

        This is not a good thing.

        • Kes@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          They can scrape info already. Anyone can set up their own private instance, federate with others, and scrape info from there, and I’d be shocked if Meta wasn’t already doing that. Besides the threads app collecting more data from the people that use the app, they can only collect data that is easily accessible from everyone else regardless of whether threads is federated or not

      • DanseMacabre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I get why people don’t want anything from Meta around stuff they use. They’re obviously awful. I just don’t think that even 5% of Fediverse users are going to ditch for Threads if Meta defederates. They were here before Meta and I can promise you not a single person on earth is signing up for Mastodon because it will federate with Threads only to have the rug pulled out from under them. This is a small niche community and that will not change with or without Meta. The people that Meta could siphon with EEE are already in their ecosystem.

          • btmoo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, they want to train AI models. They don’t give a shit about taking over ActivityPub.

            • Bleeping Lobster@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              They don’t need to take it over if they have enough unwitting users / communities / instances associating with their content & users, perhaps. Maybe they don’t care about a smaller competitor if they can just scrape all the data anyway.

      • thathoe@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t really see an argument for “extinguish” on that article. It looks like just “embrace, expand, unembrace.” I can think of a few reasons how meta could degrade the quality of the metaverse, but the example of xmpp doesn’t quite smell right - activitupub is mature (even if I disagree with lot of the core specs), and the fediverse is much more about “eventual consistency” instead of real-time chats where both side have to be online at the same time.

        I don’t really see an argument where Google drew people away from xmpp - the author themself said that nobody cared about the few xmpp users, so it’s not like Google was drawing long-time xmpp users away.

        I’d love to hear other opinions on that article.

    • lazyvar@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Mastodon the non-profit is all but compromised.

      The guy in charge is essentially in cahoots with Meta and is under an NDA from them.

      It doesn’t take more than 2 seconds of thinking to see how empty the words are that Mastodon is not at risk.

      1. Threads federates with Mastodon instances
      2. Threads uses its massive engineering resources to implement proprietary functionality that’s incompatible with Mastodon instances
      3. A non-trivial number of Mastodon users jump over to Threads, this is the first wave of people that leave Mastodon
      4. Threads drops support for federation and silos itself off
      5. The majority of the remainder of people on Mastodon jump over to Threads because they want to be able to continue to interact with the people that jumped over to Threads and/or because they want to be able to continue to interact with normies now that they’re used to that
      6. Mastodon is effectively dead, safe for a select few that stick to their guns

      3 and 5 will happen in a cascading manner, the more people switch to Threads, the more others will also want to switch.

      • chakan2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Number 3 will be difficult since most of the users moving are moving to get away from Meta. I find it hard to believe they’d just jump back into that ecosystem.

        • furikuri@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          A lot of people aren’t really ideologically opposed to Meta, they’re just on Mastodon since it’s there’s less friction to use it than Twitter (see rise of Bluesky). Threads will “fix” a lot of issues people have with Mastodon (CW, no algorithm, inability to advertise, instances moving/going under) and they’ll move without thinking anything of it since they can still access all of their Mastodon content

          Of course the move back isn’t going to be as easy, I doubt Meta is going to implement robust account migration, and then the easier choice is to stay on Threads. This is also ignoring the incompatibilities improvements to ActivityPub that Meta will introduce later on in Meta’s lifespan, which will be poorly documented and rapidly changing if they open it up at all

          Even if many Mastodon users don’t switch immediately, this is enough to hamper the long term growth/health of the platform

      • areyouevenreal@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        The post has been put out by the people that made Mastodon. Why should anyone trust you over them when you provide 0 arguments against them.

        Embrace Extend Extinguish was always a Microsoft strategy and one they have been forced to abandon over the years. Their attitude changed towards open source because it doesn’t work! I think you might be the one who is lacking in knowledge or “education” here.

          • areyouevenreal@lemmy.fmhy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            What’s your question? Microsoft invented and then abandoned the EEE strategy because the strategy dosen’t work! Open source never went away no matter what they did.

        • Zoot@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Open source doesnt work? Would love to see a source on that one alone. Almost sounds like you have an agenda to sell.

          • furikuri@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think you misinterpreted what they said. They meant “Their attitude changed towards open source because [Embrace, Extend, Extinguish] doesn’t work”

              • furikuri@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The sentence itself is a little ambiguous but it’s nothing major, it’s easy enough to get the message from context

              • Sunforged@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I had to read it twice because I misinterpreted it the same way.

                Their attitude changed towards open source because it doesn’t work!

                That “it” could be interpreted either as ‘open source’ or ‘EEE’ from the previous sentence.

  • 🦥󠀠󠀠󠀠󠀠󠀠󠀠@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    1 year ago

    I tried to sign up for this junk and it immediately suspended my account at the end of the sign up process for some reason. Now it’s demanding my mobile number to appeal it.

    Get fucked Zuckerberg you tosser.

    • alextastic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That seems to be a tactic they use to obtain the pieces of info you didn’t already give them.

  • teri@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    Spontaneous idea of how to use copyright law for keeping Meta out of the Fediverse (more for fun):

    Introduction: Parts of the Fediverse, including Mastodon, are software licensed under the APGL license. This license is a great choice because it forces the ones running the software to grant users access to the source code. GPL for example would allow to run proprietary services based on GPL code. The AGPL does not. Companies like Meta and Google will likely not use AGPL code because it might force them to also publish their proprietary systems behind the scenes. However, this does not help much for keeping the Fediverse save. They simply implement their own software which will not be open source.

    Therefore we may need another approach. Defederating is the simplest and in my opinion currently the best. It’s easy and keeps people in control.

    However, there could be some ‘automatic’ approach using copyright law. It’s a hack which allows to use existing law to regulate the way instances can federate.:

    • instances would Federate only if the other side can provide a certain piece of information called X
    • X is protected by copyright law, therefore by default, instances are not allowed to provide X
    • However, X is released under a license which for permits to copy and distribute X under certain conditions
    • The conditions allow to tune who can legally federate
    • Conditions could be
      • The server software must be AGPL licensed
      • The instance must not be owned by a company with a certain amount of annual revenue

    Open question is, who owns the copyright of X?

    • jcg@halubilo.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Haven’t you seen what RHEL is doing? Apparently if you’re big enough you can just say fuck that. I mean who you gonna answer to? Is anybody really gonna take this all the way up to the supreme court?

        • jcg@halubilo.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          IBM decided to only provide access to RHEL source code to those with a developer subscription, effectively putting RHEL behind a paywall and putting it behind an additional license you have to accept with your subscription. I mean, this seems to be pretty clearly against the GPL license that RHEL is not only released under but also the GPL licenses of the many components that RHEL uses. The GPL has some provision for, for example, charging money for source code distribution since that does indeed have a cost, but because they make you accept a second license with your subscription you can’t just turn around and give distribute it yourself to anyone who needs it - which is what you should be able to do with any GPL software. Well, you can do it, they just reserve the right to terminate your contract if you do. So you can do it once I guess? Then afterwards you no longer have access to updates. But who’s gonna make IBM answer for this? Don’t think anybody really can.

  • Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not worried at all about Zuck taking over Mastodon at all, they’ll try but they are just so incompetent, because literally every single product idea they have they either stole or bought from somebody else. Great tech, terrible products, zero originality is the Facebook mantra and that is because they have a delusional CEO that they can’t fire, because Zuck has delude himself into thinking he’s an “ideas” guy like Jobs instead of an “executions” guy like Bezos that he really is, and until he realizes that, he will always fail.

    (also, delusional for actually thinking Ready Player One is a good book)

    If making a TikTok clone didn’t get people to switch from TikTok, why would they think making a Twitter clone is going to get people to switch from Twitter?

    The only way I see Facebook being a threat is when they give up on making their Twitter clone and start providing easy subscription service hosting for Mastodon/Lemmy to EEE. THAT would be the time to worry.

    • Redecco@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I feel like we are seeing lots of these tech companies just clawing at new innovations for profit cause they can’t seem to run a stable business otherwise without fucking things up somehow. See the the crypto/nft boom, AI and it’s rapid and still somewhat untested and shoddy implementation, etc. We’ve got strikes popping up in the US as the months go on cause people are definitely feeling the shittification of things in multiple industries including tech and entertainment as of late.

      Everything tech companies like meta have been doing in the last several years is looking for their next growth fix to keep their investors happy while running their business like a toddler between sweets.

      Elon happened to set Twitter on fire, Instagram is failing to beat TikTok in short form content or even competing with things like YouTube, Facebook itself has been shriveling up over the years, now there’s some cool new tech space in the Fediverse and no corporates taking advantage of it - probably looks like early crypto to Zuck if he can swoop in and outpace the open source projects with enough funding.

    • luckystarr@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      While you may dismiss Zuckerberg as delusional, he’s shown a talent for using others’ ideas and making them profitable under Facebook. The success of Instagram and WhatsApp is proof. Google+ is nowhere to be seen anymore.

      As for Mastodon, underestimating Meta’s potential threat, particularly federating with Mastodon (this can be seen as “easy hosting” of something like Mastodon), might be a mistake. Even without originality, they have the resources to cause significant disruption.

      • Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think what’s different this time is that Zuckerberg has finally ran out ideas to steal, what Zuck is truly good at is taking a good idea amd wringing every drop of money and data out of the user for ads at the expense of missing good, honest opportunities over the decades. Off the top of my head, how do you think it would have went if Facebook started using the momentum of the popularity of Facebook games to start publishing high quality original games in the 2010s to lock people in instead of going Meta 10 years too late out of desperation?

        As for Instagram and Whatsapp, I think that’s more on Google fumbling literally everything they touch during Sundar Pichay (Yes, I think even less of Google than Facebook, they are the modern 90s Microsoft) than Facebook.

        That’s the ultimate issue with basing your company entirely off stealing ideas and internet ads, eventually you get so lazy and addicted to the easy money you forgot how to make good things anymore. Zuck couldn’t kill TikTok, but a hungry and cornered Bytedance is now coming for Instagram, so he should honestly should be more worried about that right now.

        One other thing is that you can’t just throw money at things to beat the market leader, you also need to bring something different to the table. Look at Mixer vs Twitch for example.

    • zygo_histo_morpheus@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think that an important part of twitter was the proximity to power through politicians, journalists and celebrities. If threads is good at making those people switch over, then I think a lot of other people will switch over as well. On big part of twitter users is people who love discussing the news and current events and that’s much more appealing when you can do it on the same platform as people who are in the news or write the news.

      (On the other hand lemmy has Margot Robbie so maybe we’re in the race as well?)

  • Cras@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unpopular opinion but defederating Meta is a terrible idea. What are people thinking will happen? Allow them to federate and you’ll have mastodon users able to view and interact with posts from Threads without needing to be concerned about ads or tracking, without giving over any more control of privacy than they would to any other fediverse instance, and without needing to possess accounts homed within the Meta infrastructure.

    Defederate them, and anyone who wants to interact with anyone on threads will most likely need to maintain a presence on both and handover more personal data to Meta than they otherwise would.

    Defederating is actively hostile to fediverse users.

    • AnonTwo@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      1 year ago

      The idea is that at first threads.net will seem “normal”, like all the other fediverses

      Then they start adding features that either break against other servers, or straight up aren’t supported, making threads.net seem more enticing just because all the neat features aren’t on the other sites.

      Think how Internet Explorer killed Netscape with all the Page Load errors caused by ActiveX, yet everyone wanted ActiveX sites.

      Once they’ve walked through the path of least resistance and grabbed the bulk of the traffic, they just defederate from everyone.

      • lucidwielder@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yep - best option is to defederate them well before they gain traction & start creating problem by not contributing back to the protocol in a way that benefits everyone.

        I think after the community got burned by Microsoft & then google we’re finally learning.

      • Cordoro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Couldn’t any instance or app do this already? Like #peertube does videos in a way that isn’t necessarily fully federated with #mastodon. We get partial functionality everywhere and some places will have some extra things. If it is popular enough, then add it to the standard and let everyone who wants it add the functionality.

    • Risk@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      People are concerned about Facebook/Meta trying to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish ActivityPub - if I’ve understood correctly.

      • e-ratic@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        People keep saying EEE as if that’s a point in and of itself without really explaining how in this instance

        • awsamation@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Embrace, they join the fediverse seemingly in good faith. Bringing their larger userbase to massively increase the size of the fediverse.

          Extend, they add some features that are convenient when interacting with their base across the fediverse. But these conveniences require proprietary software integration.

          Extinguish, once enough users and platforms are tied into the conveniences of extend, they use that to force compliance. Stricter and stricter rules on their proprietary software. Comply or die.

          The fediverse won’t be gone afterwards, but if it EEE works then we will end up very stifled.

          • okiokbar@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The outcome then would be that Meta’s instance would be defederated/defederate itself - how would that be different from now?

              • okiokbar@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                If the Threads product was so superior, and Mastodon so unable to respond that millions would leave Mastodon - sure. I doubt it though…

                • catastrophicblues@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You’re severely underestimating the budget Meta can throw at this. Mastodon/Lemmy/etc. right now are largely volunteer-run as opposed to full-time employees.

                • youthinkyouknowme@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I wouldn’t underestimate them though. After all, they own some of the biggest social network platforms on the globe and have the formula to hook people up down to a t.

            • finder@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              While Threads is federated social circles and communities will have time to form. Thread users will by nature of having the support of a corporate juggernaut, be the lions share of users on the 'verse. When threads pull the plug, the Fedverse becomes a ghost town overnight and everyone not on Threads will be forced to migrate if they want to keep their social circles and communities intact.

              • okiokbar@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think few people would migrate away in that scenario. Some might create additional accounts (none of this is zero-sum). It’s not unlikely that Mastodon itself will become bigger because of it, and it’ll get hard for Meta to unilaterally pull the plug - a bit like email.

        • blueshades@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          If they become so ubiquitous that all you see are Threads messages, all they have to do is start adding their own extensions to ActivityPub and degrade the experience of everyone who is not using their app.

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

            What kinds of extensions should the typical activitypub user be worried about? I don’t care if Meta adds payments or virtual avatars or whatever–if the core functionality of the Threads app is simple microblogging, it should be perfectly interoperable with that side of the fediverse.

            The more likely effect IMO (if Meta holds to their word on enabling federation on their side) is that other large social media companies (e.g. reddit, twitter) will feel pressured to federate and that will make the fediverse better, not worse.

            My account is on kbin.social but I’m working on getting kbin self hosted. When I do, I’ll absolutely be federating with Threads whether or not kbin.social does.

            • Risk@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              A cool post pops up in your feed. You click it. You are met with an overlay that says “Sorry, this post isn’t compatible with your browser. Please log in to Threads.”

              Over half your feed are Threads posts.

              Speculative example.

        • finder@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Here is an example of a corpo dealing a blow to an open source project. The article covers an example of Microsoft and Google killing a competing open source project(s).

          • Marxine@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Most comprehensive article on this topic I’ve seen since this Meta shenanigan started. Thanks for the read

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re acting like there’s only two situations: The entire Fediverse defederates with them, or the entire Fediverse federates with them. That’s not the case.

      I, personally, do not want to interact with anyone using Threads, because Meta has a proven history of poor moderation and of manipulating the narrative for political gain on Facebook and I see no reason to think they won’t do the same here. I am not the only one who holds this opinion. Those of us who feel this way can use instances that defederate with them, and have our way.

      If you want to interact with them, you can maintain an account on an instance that does federate with them. You do not need to have a Threads account, nor does anyone else.

    • miles@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Lots of naivety here. Big corps only act in their own interest. They view the world in terms of opportunities and threats. Eating Twitter’s lunch is an opportunity. The Fediverse is too small to be worth much today, but someday it might grow up and challenge the status quo. That makes it a threat.

      • Marxine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Was about to say just that. I’ll love to reject people that only follows big corpos.

        • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It isn’t the people. It’s just if I already decided not to use Facebook or twitter. Why would I get back into bed with the devil on an experimental product?

      • Kushan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is an interesting article, but I don’t think it’s fair to blame Google for the death of XMPP. Google were the largest consumers of XMPP at one point, sure, but Google was in no way (and never has been) the market leader in communications applications. Google talk came and went, Hangouts came and went and so on. The argument of “When google pulled the plug, XMPP users had to use something else to keep in touch with friends” is equally true of Google messenger users as well. I don’t know anyone that ever exclusively used a Google messenger app, now or then.

        Google isn’t entirely innocent here, they definitely didn’t treat the protocol with the respect it deserved, but the development of XMPP was/is fraught with its own problems. I remember setting up an XMPP network for use in a small office as an internal chat tool, it was a nightmare of an experience. Different XMPP Clients had different levels of compatibility with different XMPP servers, many of the clients were just poor overall and the user-experience left a lot to be desired. All we wanted was a simple instant messenger for work, in the days before Slack and Teams. We ended up using OpenFire because it was developed in tandem with Spark, it was basic but worked well for our needs but any time I tried to adopt a different messenger, half the features didn’t work.

    • Cyzaine@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      They have also already declared that if you federate with them, your instance has to abide by their code of conduct, so they already throwing their weight around.

      • sik0fewl@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think that’s essentially true for any instance, though. You don’t federate with instances you don’t want to.

    • ToastyMedic@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Strongly disagree here, better to cast them down now while the chance is there. No mercy or quarter provided to Meta considering their track record.

      If anyone is foolish enough to go there, let them, but do not drag us towards them.

    • Numuruzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Threads is new - unless you meet someone who for some reason only has a threads account, just talk to them elsewhere.

      Otherwise, why is it the Fediverse user who has to get the threads account? Tell your people to make an account elsewhere. If you are conscientiously avoiding threads, you’re probably the only one in the relationship with a principle boundary to cross in this situation.

    • 332@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with you.

      Instances can defederate from meta at any point they choose, should it become necessary in the future. Until then, it is a huge boon to the more decentralized parts of the fediverse to get content from where all the “normies” are, as well as giving more visibility to non-meta instances and giving said normies a road to the less data-hungry parts of the network.

      • Thassar@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Plus, the more entwined threads is with the rest of the fediverse, the harder it’ll be for them to break off. Users will be following Mastodon accounts and posting in Lemmy communities and if Meta does something to break that, they’re the ones that’ll get the backlash, not the fediverse. We’ll just continue along as normal.

        • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          honestly, i think only half-accepting them would be beneficial. it gives meta users a taste of the fediverse but locks them out of a whole bunch of cool stuff that they could have, if they just make an account on one of the instances that they already know because it’s in the half that does federate. we just need to ensure we never repeat xmpp’s mistake: meta users should never be a majority.

          i’ll have to discuss this with our admin team, but my initial plan is to defederate meta if usage by them hits 25%. if a critical mass of the fediverse does that, in the worst case we’ll split off from them before taking damage, and in the best case we’ll actively siphon away their user base. (and if any other tech giant enters the fray, we’ll just have to include them in the 25% quota as well.)

          update: we discussed the topic and went for an immediate defederation

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

        it is a huge boon to the more decentralized parts of the fediverse to get content from where all the “normies” are

        This is something I can’t understand. There’s obviously no profit motive to push fediverse to everyone, and most content is dogshit.

        Can you explain why you find either to be preferable?

    • redcalcium@c.calciumlabs.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      When Thread finally enable federation, just unleash the Lemmy meme community there. We’ll see how fast they roll back the federation feature on their own after their feeds are getting flooded with beans.

    • A10@kerala.party@kerala.party
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      No worries once threads becomes big enough they will defederate from fediverse /s That sure will be hostile to fediverse users.

      • Kes@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I doubt they will defederate from the rest of the fediverse. If they reach a dominant position in the fediverse, they can hide behind the fediverse being open to competition to avoid anti trust actions

    • Xepher@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m with you. What’s the hate with Threads? It’s going to basically just be like another Mastodon instance anyway, right? Just keep using whichever instance you want and Threads will end up adding more content to the fediverse. I don’t really see the downside.

      • Hopps@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In case you’re wondering why all the down votes, it’s because of this concept:

        https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html

        Edit: Heres a summary I had in another post.

        Summary:

        • The Fediverse is a decentralized network of servers communicating through the ActivityPub protocol.

        • Large corporations like Google and Microsoft have a history of either trying to control or make decentralized networks irrelevant.

        • Google joined the XMPP federation initially but implemented their own closed version, causing compatibility issues and slowing down the development of XMPP.

        • Eventually, Google stopped federating with other XMPP servers, leading to a decline in XMPP’s popularity and growth.

        • Microsoft used similar tactics to hinder competing projects, such as the Samba network file system and open source office suites like OpenOffice and LibreOffice.

        • The strategy involves extending protocols or developing new ones to deny entry to open source projects.

        • Proprietary formats and complicated specifications are used to maintain dominance in markets.

        • Meta’s potential entry into the Fediverse raises concerns as it could lead to fragmentation and a loss of freedom.

        • The Fediverse should focus on its values of freedom, ethics, and non-commercialism to avoid being co-opted by large corporations.

        How a new federated decentralized platform can avoid this fate:

        1. Stay true to the principles: The platform should prioritize and uphold the values of freedom, openness, and decentralization.

        2. Develop open and robust protocols: Use open standards and ensure the protocol’s specifications are transparent, well-documented, and not controlled by a single entity.

        3. Foster a strong community: Encourage collaboration, participation, and diversity within the community to avoid reliance on any single company or organization.

        4. Emphasize user control: Give users control over their data and privacy, allowing them to choose which servers and communities to join and ensuring their content is not subject to corporate surveillance.

        5. Focus on user experience: Create a user-friendly interface and provide features that attract and retain users, making it easy for them to engage and connect with others.

        6. Avoid centralization of power: Design the platform in a way that distributes authority and influence across the network, preventing any single entity from gaining too much control.

        7. Promote interoperability: Support compatibility with other decentralized platforms and protocols to encourage communication and collaboration across different networks.

        8. Educate and raise awareness: Educate users about the benefits of decentralized platforms, the risks of centralized control, and the importance of supporting independent, community-driven initiatives.

        By following these principles, a new federated decentralized platform can strive to maintain its integrity, preserve user freedom, and resist the influence of large corporations seeking to control or make it irrelevant.

        • Xepher@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Really appreciate the detailed response. Makes more sense why people would be wary of it after reading through that.

        • Cras@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          My reading of that isn’t that Google killed XMPP, it’s that they thought XMPP would be useful for the userbase they brought in, they realised it wasn’t, and they ditched it. There’s no indication that XMPP had the userbase and lost it to Google, or even that XMPP had features that were stolen by Google

          • sudneo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The point is simple, the moment you have the biggest chunk of the userbase, you have more weight in establishing praxis for standards & protocols. In fact, the protocol needs to catch up with you, rather than viceversa. Google did the same with Chrome, for example. Try to start a browser today, and with all the stuff that Google forced into standards and that your browser need to comply with, you will fail. Even just forcing a pace in changes to ActivityPub can mean that a number of tools that are developed by volunteers won’t be able to keep up.

            Imagine Meta brings in 100m users. This is a fraction of their userbase, but it is 8x the whole fediverse. Imagine now that they make some change that doesn’t comply with ActivityPub, what do you do, break the tool that is used by the 90% of the users, or adapt? And what if they push changes to ActivityPub, so that everyone needs to catch up quickly: lemmy, mastodon, pixelfed, etc. How soon before some tools with less active development will die because non-compliant? (Similarly to how some browser break with some sites)

          • Bilb!@lem.monster
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            For what it’s worth, I agree with your reading, and nobody has described what I consider to be a plausible scenario for how exactly “embrace, extend, extinguish” would actually work here.

            I don’t think Meta should be given the benefit of the doubt or anything and people may have differing opinions about the likely user base for Threads, but I don’t think this is any real concern to the fediverse in general.

    • Reclipse@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some instances will federate and some will block them. It doesn’t have to be all one or the other.

    • Pika@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m all for federating with them. But give the user the ability to defederate their posts/comments based off their settings. I would rather my information not be supplied to any company owned by Facebook, that’s just me.

      • ruhroe@vlemmy.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        The information they could get is already public. That’s how Activity Pub works.

        • Pika@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s completely fine, but just because a knob can be lockpick doesn’t mean you leave it unlocked.

          Granted I have very little experience with activity pub, but I would expect that it should be very possible to have something similar to how defederating Works where if you don’t allow it to be sent to a specific Community it just won’t communicate.

          edit: Looking back at it though, it wouldn’t stop them from just opening a secondary instance nobody knows about, having it set to private and then just running it as an info collector I don’t think.

  • Nougat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    If Meta is running a fediverse instance, they’re doing it for money. Sure, I might be able to block Meta-sourced content from reaching me, but that doesn’t prevent me-sourced content from reaching Meta - where they can monetize it.

    Show me how to do that, and I’m on it like white on rice.

      • DarthCluck@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Neat, but it still means nothing. You’re still posting in a public forum. You can copyright or watermark your work, but fair use is a two way street.

      • blazarious@mylem.me
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How is this legally binding? I still remember when people posted similar stuff all over Facebook. It means nothing.

      • Spzi@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        There is “messages or messages” in the middle, might want to change that.

        Where would this be posted or stored to have legal effects?

        Is there a text version available for others to copy?

        • tech@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          I printed it out and put it on the front door of my house. The castle doctrine means that this is enforced against all internet companies I use in my house.

          • TechnoBabble@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            You make a good point.

            Under the Castle Doctrine laws in my state, if Zuckerberg walked into my house without being invited then I could start blastin.

            I’ll post the legalese mumbo jumbo on my door to keep him out, like he’s a vampire.

    • :fatpikachu: ninboy@mastodon.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      @Nougat It doesn’t prevent them now, as they can just easily crawl all of your posts on here because you are posting on a *public instance*. Defederating from them does nothing to make your public content private.

      • Nougat@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        @ninboy No, it doesn’t make my public content private, but it would display my content alongside everything else that a threads user would see, which would make Meta’s product more attractive to threads users. Increased threads userbase means increased ad revenue. Speaking of which, I’m now thinking about how content I created, not on a Meta-operated site, would be (as federation by default intends) displayed next to Meta advertising on their instance. My ability to prevent me-sourced content from reaching Meta’s instance prevents me-sourced content from displaying next to advertisement I don’t want it to be displayed next to.

          • Nougat@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            @ninboy Sure, you’re not going to close that “analog hole,” but in a case like that, the audience is aware that the content isn’t from the site they’re on. Me- (and you- and everyone-)sourced content appearing on a Meta site as though it was Meta content would carry some things to have real concerns about.

            Of course, this is all really new(ish), so it’s possible that a future internet audience will have a better awareness of how federation works, and bring that understanding with them while they browse. On the other hand, have you seen people?

            Tangent: You tagged me in your original reply, which made me wonder why, and if I should do the same thing. Checking your username, I see you’re on from mastodon.social, and here I am via kbin.social. I think this is my first real interplatform conversation like that, and I think it’s really cool.

    • MiscreantMouse@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is exactly my concern, I don’t want my online activity to become another revenue stream for meta. If they can put ads next to our posts then we’re back to working for free for the billionaires.

        • fernandofig@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          If I understand correctly, the concern is not for the users on Meta’s “Threads”. It’s the fact that the content you create on Mastodon or whatever fediverse part with which Meta federated would eventually reach users on Threads, and thus “you” (on the fediverse corner outside of Meta) are indirectly monetized.

        • MiscreantMouse@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          The issue is the stuff I post being monetized by Zuck et al. I’m not interested in providing free content for billionaires.

  • ShankedMyJengaShip@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    My first reaction is this sounds like a great way to onboard more folks into the fediverse - but is this a perhaps a paradox of intolerance? Does Meta as a corporate entity have a natural intolerance to the freeness and openness of the fediverse, and if so, does it need to be violently rejected?

    • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      69
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t understand why this is even a question. Is the tragedy of the commons not taught in american education? Is Land Clearance(one example of many linked) and Enclosure not taught? (Serious question open to anyone, I do not know what history is taught outside major european countries)

      This is essential basic history to understand how land developed from being a collectively worked upon thing, decentralised, owned by everybody that worked on it, into something that was owned by a tiny tiny number of people so that they could exploit it to the maximum degree.

      Decentralisation is the creation of a commons. The goal of corporations is centralisation of power and monopoly. They are at complete polar opposites in goals. The entire point of the fediverse in the first place is to destroy the centralised power of web corporations who took what was originally a digital commons populated by thousands of sites and communities and through a form of digital enclosure turned it into a space controlled by a handful of companies.

      Learn history other than the popular military shit folks. It is essential in analysing what affects you.

      • cstine@lemmy.uncomfortable.business
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        1 year ago

        As a product of American eduation, I can say resolutely that no, that was absolutely not taught.

        Of course, this is partially because American education sucks and partially because we never HAD common land here: everything was privately owned, after it was stolen from the people who already lived here, and then most of it had people who had no say in the matter enslaved to work on it for the people who stole the land.

        Of course, this is ALSO not really taught, because it’d make people feel sad and make the US look kinda bad, so it’s always talked about but you get like, a week of coverage on both subjects, at most.

        • beerclue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          It saddens me to hear that kids in the US don’t learn about the fuckups of their ancestors, as this might “upset” them. My kids here in Germany learn about the Holocaust and they take trips to concentration camps so they learn about the past. Not to guilt them or shame them, but to teach them, so history doesn’t repeat itself. (And we’re not even native Germans, we’re east European immigrants.)

          • acupofcoffee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            1 year ago

            The problem here is conservatives call learning about our past mistakes “woke” and do everything in their power to remove this curriculum from our schools. For some reason, they look at it as “trying to destroy our great nation and traditional values” instead of “learning from our past to be a better country going forward.”

            Except military, which they teach A LOT, we spent maybe 5 days on the crimes we committed against Native Americans, but an entire month or more on the Revolutionary War. Hell, we spent longer on learning about “world religions” than we did all our mistakes. Plus, any WW1/WW2 war crimes committed by our side is not taught whatsoever.

          • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            It saddens me to hear that kids in the US don’t learn about the fuckups of their ancestors, as this might “upset” them.

            Nationalism is a disease.

          • cstine@lemmy.uncomfortable.business
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m probably going to get mega canceled here but I think a good portion of it is that the Holocaust is history.

            A lot of what we don’t talk about is how we treated the Native Americans because we’re STILL shitting on them from on high. For example, the Dakota Access Pipeline is the same old shit, different century.

            Also talking about how we’ve treated people of color, and any discussion around chattel slavery, ends up being “uncomfortable” because an awful lot of people in this country don’t seem to see any problem with it and would be perfectly happy if we could toss out the civil rights acts and go back to having separate water fountains.

            TLDR: it’s ‘history’ in Germany because ya’ll arrest people giving nazi salutes, but in the US wearing a KKK robe is “free speech”.

        • KairuByte@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s all but against the law in Florida (maybe other states as well?) to teach that aspect of history. Wouldn’t want the white kids to feel guilty for being white… because they know about things that happened in the past.

        • JasonDJ@vlemmy.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Agreed. American history is terribly white-washed.

          Basically some dudes came over from England, Indians cooked them corn and turkey and everyone was happy. A few years later their descendants got mad at England, dressed up as the Indians and threw tea off a boat. Some shots were fired but we settled down over a piece of paper that guarantees freedom and guns for all.

          Later you might learn that “all” means white land-owning males but eventually that got expanded and now we are al happy in the greatest country in the world (yes, that part is also taught), and every morning for 180 days of the year for 13 straight years we stand up and recite a poem about how much we love our country.

          Maybe it’s changing, idk. I graduated the public school system 20 years ago. My kindergartener came home a few months ago saying he watched a video on MLK Jr in his class where they talked about his assassination. I thought that was a bit dark to go to in kindergarten but at least it’s talked about, even somewhat.

      • areyouevenreal@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The whole point of the tradgedy of the commons is that publically owned finite resources don’t work. You’ve completely misunderstood the point. If you’re following that logic then centralization, ownership, and control is the only answer.

        Of course none of that applies, because what is the finite resource here? Both Meta and the fediverse can co-exist without destroying each other for want of servers or network bandwidth. The only real finite resource here is human attention - in which case federating with meta should be a good thing. This is because it increases the amount of content available on both platforms with the less popular platform benefiting the most.

        • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Christ.

          They do not aim to coexist. They aim to enclose.

          This is incredible levels of naivity. Like, literally completely and totally oblivious to how profit seeking works and what behaviours it creates.

          And the tragedy of the commons was a crock of shit made by racist eugenicist colonial-minded fuckbags, that’s the entire point of teaching it, as a way of understanding the kind of utter bullshit that gets spread when landgrabbers(in the modern day the corporations) want to go grabbing. This is why education is important, without it people go reading a wiki article and come to these kinds of nonsensical conclusions.

          • areyouevenreal@lemmy.fmhy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I didn’t read an article about it, I watched a YouTube video about it from a science and maths youtuber originally. You also didn’t elude to this in your first comment at all. I was actually going to reply to you telling you why it’s a bad concept once I learned it’s history.

            I also don’t get why your complaining to me about education. I don’t control what gets taught in the UK (my home country), I just work with what I have.

            I still don’t see how it applies to this situation in any way.

            Edit: also your username has Lenin in it. Are you a fucking tankie?

        • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The Tragedy of the Commons was a bullshit piece of justification for the enclosures written by racist colonial-minded eugenicists that resulted in the theft of land from the people and ultimate consolidation of that land as private property in the hands of the landowners. It argued that this was necessary because otherwise the hordes of drooling peasants would destroy it.

    • Zoot@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      From what I’ve seen, irregardless threads/there version on the fediverse is going to scrape any and all instances also on the fediverse. Blocking them wont necessarily help with any of this, but maybe if even communities do they wont have enough content to make it profitable? Maybe I’m naive. Well, I know I am, but any way to stick it to the man is a good idea in my book.

      • T156@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Although the scraping would happen either way, and if they really felt like it, they could just spool up their own private instance to do some scraping that way instead, even without tying it into Threads.

      • supamanc@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The goal short term isn’t to be profitable though. The goal is to pull enough users so they can effectively stunt the growth of ‘competition’.