Sure! I will try to keep it simple and not too long so I’ll cover some of the main stuff without too much detail.
Open: the Fediverse is open, it’s software is open source (the code is available for anyone to copy and improve on, or contribute changes back to the main software code), and any Meta platform will be proprietary (closed source). We don’t know what the code is behind Facebook and they don’t want us to know. The openness of the Fediverse is probably the core reason people are angry about NDAs and such.
Privacy: there are certainly privacy issues, but as an individual user this should be pretty much a non-issue if you don’t follow any Meta communities and don’t use a Meta account. Remember that for almost all Fediverse platforms, posts are public anyway.
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish: this phrase was coined during an anti-trust case with Microsoft in the 90s, there’s a wikipedia page about it. The important bit is this:
The strategy’s three phases are:
Embrace: Development of software substantially compatible with a competing product, or implementing a public standard.
Extend: Addition and promotion of features not supported by the competing product or part of the standard, creating interoperability problems for customers who try to use the “simple” standard.
Extinguish: When extensions become a de facto standard because of their dominant market share, they marginalize competitors that do not or cannot support the new extensions.
In our context, Meta is working on step 1, developing a platform compatible with the fediverse. People worry that steps 2 and 3 will come next, basically killing the Fediverse.
Shit thats scary!
Is there any way the Fediverse can collaborate to stop their takeover?
Because it definitely sounds like that’s their intent. There’s no benefit to Facebook embracing an ad-free, trackerless standard unless it’s taking over.
Is there any way the Fediverse can collaborate to stop their takeover?
There is a movement to get Fediverse instances to agree to block Meta. I guess if everyone did this, the Fediverse would continue on and Meta would probably be fine building their own platform.
But Meta has something the rest of the Fediverse doesn’t have: money. They can simply pay some carefully chosen instances to Fedirate with them (which might be what the secret conversations are about).
There will also likely be a bit of a fight between instances that do or don’t Federate with Meta, some thinking it’s good because of the new userbase and some thinking it’s bad because of the Embrace, Extend, Extinguish thing. That alone will probably cause damage as well, possibly splitting the already small userbase into two factions.
Meta is making a twitter/mastodon-like site, so Lemmy might get to have a wait and see approach, but if Meta start changing (Extending) the ActivityPub protocol then the dozens of different platforms on the Fediverse will all have to decide whether to change too or no longer be able to Federate with anyone who does change.
One of the benefits of Facebook Federating with Mastodon is the users. Building a new platform is hard but if on day 1 you can already follow millions of others then this helps. But after a month thay probably won’t be very important, so it will be interesting to see what they do next.
Sure! I will try to keep it simple and not too long so I’ll cover some of the main stuff without too much detail.
Open: the Fediverse is open, it’s software is open source (the code is available for anyone to copy and improve on, or contribute changes back to the main software code), and any Meta platform will be proprietary (closed source). We don’t know what the code is behind Facebook and they don’t want us to know. The openness of the Fediverse is probably the core reason people are angry about NDAs and such.
Privacy: there are certainly privacy issues, but as an individual user this should be pretty much a non-issue if you don’t follow any Meta communities and don’t use a Meta account. Remember that for almost all Fediverse platforms, posts are public anyway.
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish: this phrase was coined during an anti-trust case with Microsoft in the 90s, there’s a wikipedia page about it. The important bit is this:
In our context, Meta is working on step 1, developing a platform compatible with the fediverse. People worry that steps 2 and 3 will come next, basically killing the Fediverse.
Happy to answer further questions!
Shit thats scary! Is there any way the Fediverse can collaborate to stop their takeover?
Because it definitely sounds like that’s their intent. There’s no benefit to Facebook embracing an ad-free, trackerless standard unless it’s taking over.
Thank you for your clear explanation btw!
There is a movement to get Fediverse instances to agree to block Meta. I guess if everyone did this, the Fediverse would continue on and Meta would probably be fine building their own platform.
But Meta has something the rest of the Fediverse doesn’t have: money. They can simply pay some carefully chosen instances to Fedirate with them (which might be what the secret conversations are about).
There will also likely be a bit of a fight between instances that do or don’t Federate with Meta, some thinking it’s good because of the new userbase and some thinking it’s bad because of the Embrace, Extend, Extinguish thing. That alone will probably cause damage as well, possibly splitting the already small userbase into two factions.
Meta is making a twitter/mastodon-like site, so Lemmy might get to have a wait and see approach, but if Meta start changing (Extending) the ActivityPub protocol then the dozens of different platforms on the Fediverse will all have to decide whether to change too or no longer be able to Federate with anyone who does change.
One of the benefits of Facebook Federating with Mastodon is the users. Building a new platform is hard but if on day 1 you can already follow millions of others then this helps. But after a month thay probably won’t be very important, so it will be interesting to see what they do next.