@Andreas There is no evidence that is a real thing. Either the technology wasn’t profitable for the big tech company, like XMPP, or big tech uses it in everything, like RSS, but normies just don’t like to use it. If Meta join and then close itself into a silo it’s the fediverse’s fault.
Why would it be the fediverse’s fault to not welcome Meta? They’re the company behind the most privacy-invasive social media that currently exists. They would most certainly abuse federation to mine user data, push ads and fill the federated network with spambots like email networks. Then introduce a spam filter for their platform to force everyone else to use the Meta platform or remain on the bot-infested fediverse. Just nip it in the bud and reject corporate takeover attempts on the fediverse.
@Andreas The answer is that if it’s worth it for Meta to pull out it means the fediverse isn’t successfull at the things it needs to be successfull at. Email the closest equivalent which is a success, and it will never make sense for a email provider to pull out, which is what the fediverse needs to achieve.
You and I have different definitions of success for the fediverse. To me, a successful fediverse (I’m specifically referring to federated social media, not communication in general) is one with a healthy number of human users providing high-quality contributions. It doesn’t have to kill and replace centralized social media or become extremely profitable. Leave corporate social media around so the spambots and people who prefer to be force-fed advertising and rage bait can stay there.
A decentralized communication protocol like Nostr would definitely be nice to see for instant messaging, but that’s not social media.
Noble goal, but “most people” don’t want to be empowered. If they’re led somewhere by Meta and stay with Meta, they’re still under Meta’s control. The average Gmail user is not empowered and free from Google just because email is a decentralized protocol.
@Andreas There is no evidence that is a real thing. Either the technology wasn’t profitable for the big tech company, like XMPP, or big tech uses it in everything, like RSS, but normies just don’t like to use it. If Meta join and then close itself into a silo it’s the fediverse’s fault.
Why would it be the fediverse’s fault to not welcome Meta? They’re the company behind the most privacy-invasive social media that currently exists. They would most certainly abuse federation to mine user data, push ads and fill the federated network with spambots like email networks. Then introduce a spam filter for their platform to force everyone else to use the Meta platform or remain on the bot-infested fediverse. Just nip it in the bud and reject corporate takeover attempts on the fediverse.
@Andreas The answer is that if it’s worth it for Meta to pull out it means the fediverse isn’t successfull at the things it needs to be successfull at. Email the closest equivalent which is a success, and it will never make sense for a email provider to pull out, which is what the fediverse needs to achieve.
You and I have different definitions of success for the fediverse. To me, a successful fediverse (I’m specifically referring to federated social media, not communication in general) is one with a healthy number of human users providing high-quality contributions. It doesn’t have to kill and replace centralized social media or become extremely profitable. Leave corporate social media around so the spambots and people who prefer to be force-fed advertising and rage bait can stay there.
A decentralized communication protocol like Nostr would definitely be nice to see for instant messaging, but that’s not social media.
@Andreas My goals is to empower most people and not enthusiasts.
Noble goal, but “most people” don’t want to be empowered. If they’re led somewhere by Meta and stay with Meta, they’re still under Meta’s control. The average Gmail user is not empowered and free from Google just because email is a decentralized protocol.