Yep. The Fediverse has a lot of growing room in the QOL department and is hampered by the relatively small (and often part time) dev teams working on it. Meta comes in, builds a compatible platform, then starts offering meta-platform only ‘improvements’ that offer those QOL features. Rest of the Fediverse dies out because ‘meta’ isn’t that bad and they aren’t abusing their position (yet).
You absolutely should be. If Mastodon instances will start federating with Meta I will defederate them. And move my accounts from any instance that federates with them.
His lack of worry seems to be founded in Meta Defederating, not federating, though. Meta would do more harm by being a part of the community than by leaving a ways down the road. It seems like a particularly myopic view of possible problems with Metas move.
Microsoft literally invented the term, but even they’ve abandoned the philosophy and pivoted to contributing to the development of open source software. Who’s to say “Meta” won’t be making contributions to the development of ActivityPub itself like Microsoft does with Chromium? I won’t be signing up for Threads since I already have Mastodon, but I’m also unconcerned with it joining the wider fediverse and look forward to following the people who do use it from my Mastodon account.
That’s true but connecting to the fediverse is definitely trying to keep the government off their back about being a monopoly. Playing nice is in their best interests for now. If that ever changes they can be defederated at the point.
Meta makes a lot of contributions to open source. Jest and pytorch are two tools they have made open source. They have their eyes on killing Twitter and connecting to one of the biggest alternatives is a smart move, but eventually if all goes well they won’t need mastadon anymore. That’s the concern I think. Once threads is big enough they will quietly remove activitypub support and screw up mastadon in the process.
While his comment is (mostly) technically correct, it misses the point.
When it happens, you will no longer have a small (but growing) community of Mastodon users - you’ll have a bunch of nerds using a shitty version of Threads.
Honestly it reads as naivete. That they believe that defederating is the worst that Meta would, and the rest of the instances would simply go back to a state of pre-Meta. This seems like an illogical conclusion, as any activity will fundamentally change the landscape in which they dwell.
Meta doesn’t need to defederate to cause harm to the network they are seeking access to, in fact the opposite seems more likely. Having a presence within the landscape, especially with such a powerful footprint, will have a significant impact on the medium as a whole.
There have been a number of times where it successfully stifled the advance of a more free or open technology. It can’t necessarily “extinguish” in the sense of totally destroying a technology, but it can destroy the openness of the technological landscape. Just look at how Google has layered their crap on top of the open core of Android. Or look at how Apple has successfully gotten like a third of all iPhone users to be openly hostile to anyone who uses SMS and/or 3.5mm jacks. Or hell, look at what’s going on with Reddit.
I’m of the opinion that people who look down on you for not using their chosen product are just awful people to have in your life. You don’t want to be interacting with that toxic behaviour anyway.
Cut them out and make it clear: they are awful, not because of the product, but because of their behaviour.
The nice thing with open source software, there is relatively little stopping you from using it.
The nice thing with open source software, there is relatively little stopping you from using it.
Except of course if your workplace or educational institution has some restriction or imposition on the software you use. Which tends to be the result of the ubiquitous nature of proprietary software.
I’ll just leave this here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
Yep. The Fediverse has a lot of growing room in the QOL department and is hampered by the relatively small (and often part time) dev teams working on it. Meta comes in, builds a compatible platform, then starts offering meta-platform only ‘improvements’ that offer those QOL features. Rest of the Fediverse dies out because ‘meta’ isn’t that bad and they aren’t abusing their position (yet).
That’s super depressing
https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2023/07/what-to-know-about-threads/
If the founder of Mastodon isn’t worried about Threads, I won’t be, either.
You absolutely should be. If Mastodon instances will start federating with Meta I will defederate them. And move my accounts from any instance that federates with them.
His lack of worry seems to be founded in Meta Defederating, not federating, though. Meta would do more harm by being a part of the community than by leaving a ways down the road. It seems like a particularly myopic view of possible problems with Metas move.
Saved for later, but small startups/operations always know the will play second fiddle and be the smaller guy.
Microsoft literally invented the term, but even they’ve abandoned the philosophy and pivoted to contributing to the development of open source software. Who’s to say “Meta” won’t be making contributions to the development of ActivityPub itself like Microsoft does with Chromium? I won’t be signing up for Threads since I already have Mastodon, but I’m also unconcerned with it joining the wider fediverse and look forward to following the people who do use it from my Mastodon account.
Ummm… You do know this is Meta we’re talking about right?
Microsoft changed and so could Meta. They’re out to make money not just to be evil so if they think this will make them money they would do it.
They also won’t hesitate to be evil if they think that will make them more money.
That’s true but connecting to the fediverse is definitely trying to keep the government off their back about being a monopoly. Playing nice is in their best interests for now. If that ever changes they can be defederated at the point.
Microsoft could just as easily change back, too.
Meta makes a lot of contributions to open source. Jest and pytorch are two tools they have made open source. They have their eyes on killing Twitter and connecting to one of the biggest alternatives is a smart move, but eventually if all goes well they won’t need mastadon anymore. That’s the concern I think. Once threads is big enough they will quietly remove activitypub support and screw up mastadon in the process.
deleted by creator
While his comment is (mostly) technically correct, it misses the point.
When it happens, you will no longer have a small (but growing) community of Mastodon users - you’ll have a bunch of nerds using a shitty version of Threads.
Honestly it reads as naivete. That they believe that defederating is the worst that Meta would, and the rest of the instances would simply go back to a state of pre-Meta. This seems like an illogical conclusion, as any activity will fundamentally change the landscape in which they dwell.
Meta doesn’t need to defederate to cause harm to the network they are seeking access to, in fact the opposite seems more likely. Having a presence within the landscape, especially with such a powerful footprint, will have a significant impact on the medium as a whole.
Yep, this is precisely what I thought too.
EEE famously doesnt work very well, Microsoft who coined the phrase even gave up on it after a number of unsuccessful attempts
I wish people would stop spamming EEE
There have been a number of times where it successfully stifled the advance of a more free or open technology. It can’t necessarily “extinguish” in the sense of totally destroying a technology, but it can destroy the openness of the technological landscape. Just look at how Google has layered their crap on top of the open core of Android. Or look at how Apple has successfully gotten like a third of all iPhone users to be openly hostile to anyone who uses SMS and/or 3.5mm jacks. Or hell, look at what’s going on with Reddit.
I’m of the opinion that people who look down on you for not using their chosen product are just awful people to have in your life. You don’t want to be interacting with that toxic behaviour anyway.
Cut them out and make it clear: they are awful, not because of the product, but because of their behaviour.
The nice thing with open source software, there is relatively little stopping you from using it.
Except of course if your workplace or educational institution has some restriction or imposition on the software you use. Which tends to be the result of the ubiquitous nature of proprietary software.