885
Kev Quirk, one of the admins of Fosstodon (a Mastodon instance), destroys Meta in an email exchange. (fosstodon.org)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/technology@beehaw.org
395 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] 4 points 3 years ago (1 child)

OK, I've read that link and it still doesn't really explain how exactly Meta intends to monetise other peoples' posts - "collect data from and monetise", how exactly are they going to monetise other peoples' posts on other instances, when they have no ability to e.g. serve ads to those people?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 9 points 3 years ago (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago* (3 children)

    I don't think anyone is questioning your cynicism of Meta's intentions or motivations, but the nature of the Fediverse is specifically designed to make it very difficult (if not impossible) for any one party to control the entire thing. It's a question of how not if.

    The worst thing I could see is something like the development of React where FB has an overwhelming advantage in sheer resources and ends up having a major influence on the direction of software trends. But that would still just be a popularity thing and would not actively stop anyone from doing their own thing. Maybe there is something in the license for ActivityPub that would let them pull a Google-vs-Oracle reverse engineering, but again that won't stop other instances or developers from ignoring them if they wanted.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Here's the rundown:

    1. Meta joins fediverse
    2. Meta introduces convenient, cool and innovative features not originally on fediverse code
    3. Everyone wants new features, but features are locked under propietary code.
    4. Everyone flocks to meta's instance.
    5. Meta is now the fediverse and the fediverse is nothing but a husk of its former self
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    What? Defederating doesn't fix that.

    1. Meta doesn't join the fediverse
    2. Meta introduces convenient, cool and innovative features not originally on fediverse code
    3. Everyone wants new features, but features are locked under propietary code.
    4. Everyone flocks to meta's product.
    5. Meta is now the fediverse and the fediverse is nothing but a husk of its former self

    The solution is 1: to make sure users understand that it's a bad idea to flock to meta's instance, and 2: to implement that feature in the fediverse if everyone likes it so much they're willing to leave. The solution is not defederating now because of the posibbilty that they do that in the future.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    It's not cynicism if the other party has a track record of behaving in an anti-competitive manner. The Fediverse became a competitor once it showed non-negligible growth.

    It's not cynicism, it's weariness.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent