• Kushan
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        61 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        Not only was it not very successful, it’s an old outdated Microsoft playbook from the 90s/early 00s and was targeted at closed source competitors and freeware, not open source software where you can just fork out a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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            41 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              41 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.

        • redcalcium
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            51 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1
                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.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  21 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.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    -21 year ago

                    There are no users “exploring open source alternatives.” Have you seen the Lemmy signup flow? It’s a complete shitshow that probably turns away 95% of people to begin with.

                    Facebook almost certainly doesn’t see Lemmy and Mastodon as a threat or competitor. They adopted ActivityPub because it’s nice, and they’ll move on as they need to scale, and Lemmy and Mastodon will continue to survive as they always have.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              0
              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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              01 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.
        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -11 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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1
                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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          4
          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 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.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 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.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    Talking about any alternative scenario is always speculation, but I believe the “How to kill decentralized networks” post that’s been going around lately puts it nicely:

                    One thing is sure: if Google had not joined, XMPP would not be worse than it is today.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  01 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.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    1
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I’m not sure how things are going to go with Meta and federation and EEE could happen and definitely see some of the concerns, but the way people are just pointing to that XMPP article in every thread as some slam dunk argument I think is overstating it. It’s one example and there are lots of other considerations around it and different context that make it so it’s not something that can really be directly mapped onto this situation.

                    Things may go south with Meta and federation but the constant pointing to XMPP is not really making a solid argument IMO.

                    I think it’s all besides the point anyway. Some servers will federate with Meta and any other big companies that enter the Fediverse. Some wont. Meta is big enough not to care, and the big Masto servers are also going to do what they want to do and allow federation. And if there’s desire from Mastodon users to connect with Threads and follow accounts there people will move to servers that allow that. And then there may be communities that aren’t federated with Meta that are also great and strong. We’ll see how it plays out, but small Masto/Lemmy servers choosing to not Federate I don’t think will have much impact broadly speaking on how this goes. But by the same token if servers don’t want to federate with Meta that’s totally cool too and I respect that as well. We’ll have some parts of the Fediverse in the future that connect with the big platforms and some that don’t. That’s the path we’re on now either way — some will federate, some won’t — and people can choose which part they want to be part of.

                    Personally I think the Fediverse and ActivityPub will be more resilient than XMPP and will be durable against EEE. Especially if other players like Tumblr and Wordpress jump in that will strengthen interoperable ActivityPub even more. If people want to not federate with Meta that’s cool and I definitely see some good points around it (but not so much the much heralded XMPP article) but I think the Fediverse will be fine either way and ActivityPub’s future is looking stronger than ever.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    01 year ago

                    How convoluted the protocol is doesn’t really matter as long as someone creates an easy tool to spin up your own server.

                    I think the XMPP comparison stills stands: Google was able to steer how the protocol developed, or which version of the protocol people used because they had the majority of the users and other servers wanted to still be able to interact with them.

                    Suppose that Facebook joins the fediverse and most large instances federate with them. All is great, then Facebook starts to make demands to other instances in order to keep federating with them, e.g. no posts about protests. Because a large share of ActivityPub activity will be on Threads, naive users would prefer instances that federate with it, so instance mods will be incentivized to comply with Facebook’s demands to attract new users and maintain their current one and… you see where this is going. The only way to deal with this is to deny Facebook this kind of leverage in the first place, either by blocking them instantly or at their first mishap or demand.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 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 🦝
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      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).

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 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”

          • Bilb!
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 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.

              • Bilb!
                link
                fedilink
                English
                01 year ago

                But that’s already true for Twitter.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 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.

                  • Bilb!
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    1
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    If you think the aforementioned celebrities/influencers/news orgs/etc. are going to choose the fediverse instead of Threads or (I think more likely) BlueSky, that might make sense. I don’t see that happening though. What might instead happen is something like this:

                    Potential fediverse user: “I heard that Facebook’s new twitter competitor can work with these existing sites. So I can make an account on one of those and follow Celebrity X and Politician Y without making a Meta account.”

                    Potential fediverse admin: “Well yeah, but you can’t follow them from my instance. Or any of these other instances. You see, back in the 90s there was this concept called embrace, extend extinguish…”

                    No longer a potential fediverse user: “Oh, I guess I’ll just make a Meta/Bluesky account instead then.”

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                2
                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….

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 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.

          • partial_accumen
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            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.

            • Maiznieks
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 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.

            • redcalcium
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                01 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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -11 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

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1
                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!

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 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.