Lemdro.id

1 point

9 months ago

You’ll note in the postmortem about it the recollection is that Google was too slow to adopt features and fix bugs, not the other way around.

You still fall behind on compatibility with the original protocol. Doesn’t matter if you pull up or down, it still breaks compatibilty.

report

[ - ]

MudMan@kbin.social

7 points

9 months ago

It absolutely matters under ActivityPub because, as I said earlier, it comes down to the client to manage the incoming packets. If Meta is out of date with the protocol but the rest of the federation is not (and retains backwards compatibility at all), then everybody else gets nicely formatted but feature-limited Meta content and they get garbled stuff.

It’s only relevant if we get garbled stuff and they get nicely formatted content. Which should be entirely avoidable if they “pull down”.

So no, not the same. And crucially people are still misquoting the article and the article is still misrepresenting the so-called “EEE” strategy.

report

[ - ]

0 points

9 months ago

The difference here is that, one, people are more aware now than they were back then (privacy wasn’t as big an issue then as it is now, thus people are more aware and are on the Fediverse for a reason), two, now the Fediverse has the upper hand (because of Mastodon mostly… they are somewhat of a player in the social media market), three, devs won’t allign with Meta’s moral compass just because it’s Meta (like it was with Google back then… people actually believed that company’s slogan back then).

So, what might have worked back then, probably won’t now, but it’s still good to approach Meta with caution.

report

[ - ]

MudMan@kbin.social

4 points

9 months ago

Huh. I was just saying up here that I don’t think anybody genuinely believes the fediverse is a Meta competitor, but… guess I was wrong.

Mastodon does not have the upper hand by any metric. Threads alone has an order of magnitude more active users than the entire fediverse and Meta has multiple platforms with billions of users (and have signaled that they want Threads to reach that size).

You can absolutely argue that ActivityPub is a tech trendsetter and has an edge over BlueSky in that it’s already up and running. You can’t seriously argue that Mastodon or the fediverse are a threat, a competitor or have an advantage over Threads or Meta. One of the biggest hints that Meta isn’t going for “EEE” here is that it’s probably not worth the effort.

report

[ - ]

0 points

9 months ago

Huh. I was just saying up here that I don’t think anybody genuinely believes the fediverse is a Meta competitor, but… guess I was wrong.

Not a competitor, that’s the corps view on things (the fediverse taking a piece of it’s cake, us not looking at ads and not playing stupid games on their platforms).

Mastodon does not have the upper hand by any metric. Threads alone has an order of magnitude more active users than the entire fediverse and Meta has multiple platforms with billions of users (and have signaled that they want Threads to reach that size).

It still shows up in metrics and market share (not on every chart/pie, but still). What I meant was that it can be taken as a serious player by some. I don’t think it really is, but some people do.

And by having the upper hand, I meant as in being more advanced and in it’s adolescent stage, not in it’s infancy (which wasn’t the case with XMPP… maybe it wasn’t in it’s infancy, but it barely reached puberty). My point was that people on Mastodon, devs and admins, know exactly what they like and you can’t really push them around or try and lour them into some scheme, like flushing down millions into Mastodon development (which will put them in their pocket). We’ve seen this tactic with other companies (Mozilla as the most prominent example) and we know exactly where it leads. This wasn’t the case back then, people generally trusted IT companies, they really thought most of them cared about the users. Sure, make a few bucks here and there, but in general, just take care of the users and business as a second thing. Of course, we learned later on that that was never the plan, at all, but it was too late by then.

You can absolutely argue that ActivityPub is a tech trendsetter and has an edge over BlueSky in that it’s already up and running. You can’t seriously argue that Mastodon or the fediverse are a threat, a competitor or have an advantage over Threads or Meta. One of the biggest hints that Meta isn’t going for “EEE” here is that it’s probably not worth the effort.

They do the integration for a reason… what that reason might be, I have no idea… might be malicious, might not be. In any case, even if they truly have the best intents for their users (which I seriously doubt) and the Fediverse (which I also seriously doubt), that doesn’t mean that the product of those good willed intentions can’t be taken to another level, i.e. used to do bad things. Remember, the dynamite wasn’t invented to be used in bombs.

report

[ - ]

MudMan@kbin.social

2 points

9 months ago

I swear, I’m so tired of naive takes about “good” and “bad” corporations.

Corporations are corporations. They are groups of people legally mandated to make money for their shareholders. They’re not individuals.

So yeah, I’m fairly confident that them taking steps towards joining ActivityPub is some mix of high ranking people thnking interoperability is cool, some other high ranking people thinking that may smooth over what seems like an immediate future full of legal challenges, particularly in Europe and some other people thinking that as long as all the newcomers to the Twitter corpse party are interoperable they can flex their superior resources and development.

Because that’s how groups of people behave.

But I’m also very confident that nobody looked at the rounding error that is the fediverse userbase, disproportionally made up of FOSS true believers and fringe infosec nerds and went “we need to plot their demise”. That’s not a thing that groups of people concerned with building userbases in the billions talk about.

report

[ - ]

0 points

9 months ago

There are no good corporations… well, not any more. Some of them actually used to care about making good products. Now, no, none of them care about that.

Corporations are corporations. They are groups of people legally mandated to make money for their shareholders. They’re not individuals.

Exactly.

But I’m also very confident that nobody looked at the rounding error that is the fediverse userbase, disproportionally made up of FOSS true believers and fringe infosec nerds and went “we need to plot their demise”. That’s not a thing that groups of people concerned with building userbases in the billions talk about.

Not saying that that is the true nature of the plan, but that there are numerous aspects (as you noted) by which this can be seen as a good thing by Meta (as in, it gives a peek into their playground) to do… whatever… good or bad, doesn’t matter.

report