cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/719121
This blog post by Ploum, who was part of the original XMPP efforts long ago, describes how Google killed one great federated service, which shows why the Fediverse must not give Meta the chance
I don’t want Google, I don’t want Meta, I don’t want Apple. I do not like like their corpo scams. I do not like them Sam I am.
I think there is one main difference between xmpp and activitypub. A chat protocol gets better the more users it has. So the users were the killer app. xmpp arguably wasn’t much worse off after Google left than before it got there.
Mastodon is a bit like this, in that lots of users are probably looking for the same type of content from the same users as they got on Twitter.
kbin/lemmy are a lot less like that. I just need enough people to surface interesting content and have a meaningful conversation. And I’ve already (mostly) got that now. If meta brought all of their users to link sharing it would probably get worse with clout-chasing, organic marketing, and low effort crap.
Going to be a big moment in internet history, how we decide to handle this will shape how the internet is used and content is consumed for the next decade
It will be big only if we can protect the Fediverse. Should we allow the ActivityPub to fall to corporate control, like XMPP and OOXML before it, ActivityPub will be barely a footnote in history, amounting to little more than an idealized dream.
TIL what the GAFAM empire is.
Besides that, I think the following quote is key:
Google realized that most XMPP interactions were between Google Talk users anyway. They didn’t care about respecting a protocol they were not 100% in control. So they pulled the plug and announced they would not be federated anymore
I never used Google Talk nor XMPP but I gather XMPP didn’t have enough users to sustain itself.
Chat systems (and Twitter/Facebook similar platforms) need a very high amount of users to be “sustainable” because they are centered on individuals.
The fediverse doesn’t need that many because is centered around meaningful discussions, having too many is even counterproductive because discussions derail into shitposting (look at reddit).
I agree with the blogger when they say
We should not try to include as many people as we can at all cost. We should be honest and ensure people join the Fediverse because they share some of the values behind it
Mainly because if we did, lemmy would go down the drain as much as reddit has done the last few years.
I want Meta blocked because I don’t want their shit coming over here, much more than being worried about them trying to extinguish the fediverse, tho you can be sure they will indeed try.
The fediverse doesn’t need that many because is centered around meaningful discussions
I’m not sure I agree. I think a small user base results in /news /politics /[whatever big group] being better… but results in things like r/fire’s predecessor being much quieter.
I hope I’m wrong though. /patientgamers seems just as busy.
Very true. Normies are gonna be normies no matter what. That does not make them bad people but it does mean that we probably don’t want them in droves over here. It would make the Fediverse much more vulnerable to being taken over by something by a centralized, corporate`` service.
The main drive for normies is avoiding friction. From chat platforms to the phone brand or OS, they simply don’t want to learn something new, unless “everyone’s using it”.
The only reason that people stick to GAFAM is because it’s made super convenient, no learning required, and if there’s a problem or limitation, they can bypass it for a few bucks per month.
I’m all in for a decentralized self-hosted future, but the barrier to entry right now is too high for the average normie.
Do you think a low barrier to entry would be a good thing though? I feel as though that would invite politics, censorships, free speech discussions and the like into the Fediverse.
Normies, culturally, will still be normies. I know various fandom subcultures have suffered sad fates like this.
I don’t know, I think a usability/freedom balance needs to be delicately handled.
What an interesting piece - cc @daringfireball@mastodon.social
Wow very good read here for someone not knowledgeable about the fediverse.
This would suck ass. Meta would then buy up the #fediverse shares or do some kinda huge stake in it. then kill it off then we are back to facebook and twitter! How do we stop this?
Refuse to federate with Meta. I’m generally against defederation, but this is one area I’m willing to take a stand on.
I’m worried this will not be enough in the long run.
Imagine Meta provides more original content, a higher user base, more engagement, more activity. That alone would make it interesting for many other users, further increasing their relative attractivity.
Additionally, they could invest in the codebase, and implement some of the community’s dream features, some nice mod tools, search engine discoverability and whatnot. On a fork which lives on their instances, of course. Services which work if you federate with them.
They have the resources to rase the stakes higher and higher. The incentives are objective, real, advantages for users, communitites, mods and admins. Isn’t it only a question of time / stake height until significant parts of the fediverse choose to cooperate for various reasons?
Wow, that’s a very good article. Thank you for sharing.
I’m against defederation in general. Users should be able to block specific instances if they want.
Did you read the article?
Then the fediverse isn’t for you.
