348
submitted 9 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/fediverse@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] 0x1C3B00DA@kbin.social 0 points 9 months ago

You can't really Embrace, Extend, Extinguish an open standard. Anybody can continue to use the unextended version and that's exactly what would happen if Meta tried it. They can't force servers to update or implement meta-specific features

[-] Adanisi@lemmy.zip 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

You could say the same thing about any EEE strategy against anything not proprietary. However, evidently it works.

[-] 0x1C3B00DA@kbin.social 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

No it doesn't because you can't extinguish a publically available standard when anybody can write their own software. XMPP is the horror story used to warn about EEE, but it still exists. The fediverse is a small network right now. If Meta tried to EEE it, server admins who don't want to participate in a Meta-controlled network would not implement Meta's extensions. The network would splinter into a Meta-fediverse and the actual fediverse, which would be smaller than it is now but still exist as a free and open network that could continue to grow.

They can't turn off our servers, or force us to implement their tech, or stop us from implementing freedom/privacy preserving features.

EDIT: The reason EEE did so much damage to XMPP was because most users weren't aware of it. XMPP got so big because non-tech savvy users didn't even know they were using it. So when Google starting phasing it out users didn't even realize it, they only maybe realized they couldn't talk to one or two people now. But the fediverse has always been an explicit alternative to corporate social media and advertised that it is built on open standards that are not controlled by corporations. Its one of the key factors in a lot of the userbase's decision to be here. If a split were to happen, that would leave the remaining open fediverse still large enough to sustain itself (even if its smaller than it is at this moment).

[-] helenslunch@feddit.nl 5 points 9 months ago

It "still exists" but user adoption is basically zero, which is the opposite goal of open standards.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

User adoption here is also "basically zero."

Lemmy is a rounding error in population versus larger sites. It's a walled garden.

You cannot weaken the fediverse more than the near-total lack of adoption that already exists.

[-] helenslunch@feddit.nl 3 points 9 months ago

User adoption here is also "basically zero."

Yes and there are a variety of reasons why it is that way, none of which includes being picked up by a megacorp for profit and then being dumped later after they've extracted all the value from it.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Assuming it is picked up and dropped, the fediverse is completely unchanged. That's my point.

[-] 0x1C3B00DA@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago

exactly! The end result of EEE is basically the state we're already in. I also don't believe that's what Meta intends. Despite how a lot of ppl here feel about it, the fediverse isn't worth the effort of EEE. I think its more likely that Meta knows it's on its last leg and is looking for something to latch on to (see also: their failed metaverse initiative). And the EU's recent regulatory drive probably makes the fediverse look even more useful for Meta to attach itself to

this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
348 points (96.0% liked)

Fediverse

27738 readers
103 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS