this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2023
889 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37712 readers
162 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The exchange is about Meta's upcoming ActivityPub-enabled network Threads. Meta is calling for a meeting, his response is priceless!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (17 children)

If Meta wants to make an app that is competitive with other fediverse apps and is actually good, I don't see the problem. If they want to harm other fediverse instances then I do. How much harm could they do to the fediverse? Would they then block off all other apps when their app is the biggest essentially?

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (4 children)

they could make their own custom version of the fediverse, slowly diverging from the core open source version, then push the actual fediverse into obscurity, the same way Google Chat killed XMPP.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

this was an excellent article. I'm old enough to remember being impacted by these events.

I'm not in Munich, but I remember trying to embrace OpenOffice, and telling my wife how pissed off I was that Microsoft wasn't following it's own open source document standard.

I remember Google killing XMPP, and there's also the more recent examples of what Facebook has done to WhatApp, Instagram, and the other potential competitors that got buried.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

In other words they're trying a new way to turn the fediverse into the metaverse.

That makes about the most sense It possibly can.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

they could make their own custom version of the fediverse

I mean, they already did and it's called "Facebook" (and "Instagram")? Are people forgetting that Fediverse apps are being developed as an alternative to the existing commercial "social media"? Meta is already heavily invested in keeping users on their platforms and killing alternatives. This is 100% an attempt to do that. They just added a pair of Groucho glasses to it and think people won't see through the flimsy disguise.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You don't have to use it though?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, of course not. You didn't have to use Google chat either, but here we are. I never used it but ICQ is still dead. My point is that the billion dollar companies have more power than just making instances. Once their instances have features that the rest of the fediverse doesn't, people will be motivated to use their version instead because "it's more convenient and I can talk to my friends."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So your complaint is that you don't want them to do it better?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

It's not that they might do something better.

It's that they have a history of encouraging the competition to adopt an open standard (to gain the active users), and then purposely scuttling the standard in order to sink the competition (and leave the users with no functioning alternative).

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If they do it better without contributing the improvements back to the standard then that's something to complain about. Because then all they're doing is a different, better, proprietary standard and they never really had any intention of embracing an open source project.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

...and they never really had any intention of embracing an open source project.

Well, FOSS. Open source projects can still be proprietary, as just because you can see the source code doesn't mean you have legal permission to use it as you wish.

Anyway, there's a simple rule about this: capitalist corporations NEVER have the intention of embracing FOSS. Like, people want to give M$ lots of credit for contributing to the Linux kernel for a while, but the truth is that their motivation for doing so wasn't to improve on Linux, but to gain advantage for their own hypervisor (and then cloud) platform. They'd tried to take over the web server space with Windows Server and realized it was never going to happen, so they took a step lower and tried to get every instance of Linux-based web servers running on Azure. Tailoring the Linux kernel for their brand of virtual environment was NOT done for the benefit of Linux developers or users.

load more comments (12 replies)