this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2023
886 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37713 readers
372 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think it would be incredibly naive and foolish to believe Meta has any kind of pure motives for this.
One of the biggest corporations in the world reaching out to its competitor to try to get them to talk "off the record" about "confidential details"... Sounds like a pretty blatant scheme to get them to reveal confidential details about their competitor's product.
Or maybe Meta has broken with decades of its own conduct, and several centuries of capitalism, in order to reach out in good faith to their competitor. LOL.
Its a really immature and niave response from Kev. Information is power, he's chosen to operate without knowledge for internet points.
Meta think there is potential to enlarge their market and make money, Kev's response won't impact their business making decisions.
Kev should have gone to the meeting to understand what Meta are planning. That would help him figure out how to deal with Meta entering the space.
I don't expect he could shape their approach but knowing they want to do X, Y or Z might make certain features/fixes a priority so it doesn't impact everyone else
I think you are insinuating that because meta has money and power, he owes it to the community to hear them out. That's a capitalistic perspective that seems centered around either making money or having a larger 'market'. I wouldn't assume that this is the status quo for everyone involved in the fediverse.
Also, if Meta isn't willing to share its plans publicly, only to the owners of the largest instances online, I question their motives.
@macallik and if you scroll down the comments, Byron from Universeodon, who did take the earlier meeting, did provide some vague points from the meeting. Relating to your point about big instances, it seems likely that FB wants to throw money at them so that they won't become overwhelmed by the ensuing traffic (unlike the rest of us, I guess...) so they can demonstrate that the Instagram bridge (it's an IG product) works.
@giallo @madjo @nameless_prole @stevecrox
That is good to know. That doesn't negate the fact that this is the same company:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/app-developers-sue-facebook-over-alleged-anticompetitive-scheme-n1117551
@macallik
Absolutely. If this is true then for the other small to mid-size instances it's not just an existential threat philosophically but technically. They're expecting Threads onboarding might just knock out instances because of the traffic. Might as well limit or block just for your own performance metrics.
Massive corporations never "throw money" at people or things without strings. I'd be very wary about what taking money from Meta would mean.