A naive planet. Google embrace, extend, extinguish. For profit companies do not want a free community taking away from their ad revenue and they see that the fediverse is something that could take users away from their platforms.
To me, the argument for accepting Meta into the Fediverse goes beyond gain and loss. If you run an Internet service, you have a moral obligation to make a good faith attempt to interoperate with anyone using the protocol as intended.
By a similar token, if you run a mail server, you should accept SMTP connections as far as possible. Yes, you can ban spam, but you should not ban connections from Gmail even if Gmail is a privacy-destroying bad idea. By all means, allow individual users to set up their own block lists, but this should not be done at the server level.
Sure, just like you can run an SMTP server that blocks incoming connections from Gmail. It’s not illegal, obviously, but it goes against the spirit of an open, interoperable internet.
I agree with you on that. That’s why I find this anti-Meta pact or manifesto or whatever naive and premature.
Just if there are people who insist on banning anything Meta, they are welcome to do so in their instances. Interoperability is still preserved. They are not adding anything to the protocol. Banning instances is part of the interoperability. I think this is where our opinion differs.
Just if there are people who insist on banning anything Meta, they are welcome to do so in their instances.
Isn’t that what we’re doing? We can’t stop Meta from federating, that’s not a function of the protocols. We’re building a pact to defederate them from our instances.
A lot of people came to Mastodon because it was a safe space for queer and marginalized communities after being driven away by the lack of moderation and ability to keep them safe on places like Facebook and Twitter.
Basically the sequence of events as claimed by the author is that:
XMPP small niche, small circles
Google launches Talk that was XMPP compatible
Millions joined Talk that could coop XMPP in theory
The coop worked only sparingly and was unidirectional, i.e. Talk to XMPP ✅ but XMPP to Talk ❌
Talk sucked up existing XMPP users as it was obviously a better option (bandwagon effect + unidirectional “compatibility” with XMPP)
Talk defederated
This demonstrated exactly the importance of reciprocity. If Meta plays dirty, defederate them then. Now is just too premature. Also frankly it is Meta that has more to lose than the fediverse at this moment as the bulk of users and thus the content are with Meta.
If Meta plays dirty, defederate them then. Now is just too premature.
HARD disagree. Meta has been fighting dirty since their inception. There is no reason to put even the smallest bit of trust in them, and every reason to do the opposite. Everything they touch turns to shit, it follows then that you should never allow them to touch that which you hold dear
If Meta plays dirty, defederate them then. Now is just too premature.
These actors play nice until they are too big to ignore. If you let them gain that much ground, it’s too late to isolate them without doing even more harm to your own network.
Also Meta is not a startup with unknown reputation. Meta plays dirty, that’s a given.
Am I living in a different planet from the rest of the commenters here? We have much more to gain from this than they do.
A naive planet. Google embrace, extend, extinguish. For profit companies do not want a free community taking away from their ad revenue and they see that the fediverse is something that could take users away from their platforms.
If you trust meta, I’m sorry but your an idiot.
To me, the argument for accepting Meta into the Fediverse goes beyond gain and loss. If you run an Internet service, you have a moral obligation to make a good faith attempt to interoperate with anyone using the protocol as intended.
By a similar token, if you run a mail server, you should accept SMTP connections as far as possible. Yes, you can ban spam, but you should not ban connections from Gmail even if Gmail is a privacy-destroying bad idea. By all means, allow individual users to set up their own block lists, but this should not be done at the server level.
Well you can do that already. As in the spirit of federvise, host your instance and ban anyone and any instance you dun like. Your turf your rule.
Sure, just like you can run an SMTP server that blocks incoming connections from Gmail. It’s not illegal, obviously, but it goes against the spirit of an open, interoperable internet.
I agree with you on that. That’s why I find this anti-Meta pact or manifesto or whatever naive and premature.
Just if there are people who insist on banning anything Meta, they are welcome to do so in their instances. Interoperability is still preserved. They are not adding anything to the protocol. Banning instances is part of the interoperability. I think this is where our opinion differs.
Isn’t that what we’re doing? We can’t stop Meta from federating, that’s not a function of the protocols. We’re building a pact to defederate them from our instances.
A lot of people came to Mastodon because it was a safe space for queer and marginalized communities after being driven away by the lack of moderation and ability to keep them safe on places like Facebook and Twitter.
There’s good reason to be suspicious.
Not really no.
The process of “embrace, extend and extinguish” has been used multiple times to destroy FLOSS projects from the inside.
Of the top of my head:
I’ve just got back from a run so my brain is not fully connected, so others can give other examples.
Meta do not want to join the party for fun. They want to join because it is the only way they can smother it.
Can you elaborate on them? Stating just the names requires you to already be aware of how they were taken over.
I recommend checking this article out https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
@ericflo@lemmy.ml as well
Look up what happened to XMPP (Jabber) when Google “integrated” with them.
https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
Basically the sequence of events as claimed by the author is that:
This demonstrated exactly the importance of reciprocity. If Meta plays dirty, defederate them then. Now is just too premature. Also frankly it is Meta that has more to lose than the fediverse at this moment as the bulk of users and thus the content are with Meta.
HARD disagree. Meta has been fighting dirty since their inception. There is no reason to put even the smallest bit of trust in them, and every reason to do the opposite. Everything they touch turns to shit, it follows then that you should never allow them to touch that which you hold dear
These actors play nice until they are too big to ignore. If you let them gain that much ground, it’s too late to isolate them without doing even more harm to your own network.
Also Meta is not a startup with unknown reputation. Meta plays dirty, that’s a given.