23
Meta's Threads.net
(midwest.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
23 points (100.0% liked)
main
1339 readers
6 users here now
Default community for midwest.social. Post questions about the instance or questions you want to ask other users here.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Openness, like tolerance, is a mutual contract. If one party breaches a contract or fully intends to, the other cannot be held at fault for not fulfilling their end of the bargain. Tolerance cannot extend to people who intend to violate others.
We know that given the opportunity, Meta would control the fediverse to its own ends. Failing that, Meta will try to destroy it and replace it with something they can control. Whether or not you think these are possible, this is sufficient grounds to block them. It boggles my mind that anyone would think otherwise.
@aberrate_junior_beatnik @niartenyaw how do you know that? Isn't it entirely possible that they just decided to build a Twitter knock off and realized that building off ActivityPub gave them a headstart and some good PR? Meta is a giant compared to the fediverse and it's trying to compete with other giants, not ants. Declaring we won't eat crumbs dropped from the giant's table isn't going to even be noticed by the giant. We get more out of federation than they do by a mile.
that's very fair, but i think they are going for control here.
their entire business model is to monetize via selling data and ads. so trivially they need users to give them data and see ads. to maximize this, they need to maximize the number of people using the app and the time each person spends using the app. both of these require control. easiest way is to lock in users via their network/communities being there while manipulating content to get people to spend more time.
open protocols are in direct opposition to this type of control. for instance, the tech giants see how they can't control email and hate it. they struggle to monetize it via their business model because ads and manipulation result in a terrible user experience. users will just leave and go to another provider (in this example, they obviously lose the domain unless they own and use a custom one). google killed the xmpp protocol with embrace, extend, extinguish for the same reason. as an open protocol gets going, it only gets harder for the tech giants to stop.
so, if they want to stay in control, they need to squash a federated platform as early as possible, the most proven strategy being embrace/extend/extinguish. so, given history, this is what the tech giants have planned for the fediverse.
I mean sure but I don't see how that's in contradiction with what I said.
So which is it? Do they get a headstart and good PR or are we completely insignificant? Seems like if we have the chance to deny them a headstart and good PR we should.
I'm not getting anything out of it, and many others feel the same way. I'd be happier if they just made their own thing and left us alone.
@aberrate_junior_beatnik the headstart I was referring to was in developing the technology. As you pointed out it would be hypocritical to cite the fediverse user base as a draw to using ActivityPub while simultaneously downplaying the size of the user base as insignificant. Sorry I wasn't clear what I was referring to.
That makes no sense. It would be much faster to simply not federate.