this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
494 points (94.6% liked)
Fediverse
28408 readers
734 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This time I don't think it is an extenguish scenario. I think this is more of a preventative move to one-up the EU on interoperability. They want to be able to say "look how good we are, we already were interoperable for x time!". But of course this could also not be the case and they might just want to kill the network, but I even find that unlikely. Xmpp isn't dead in fact I use it every day as my phone number for texts and calls and I quite like it. Super robust, I basically never saw any federation weirdness like you could see on mastodon or Lemmy. So in my eyes xmpp didn't get killed, they got beat by someone who had ressources and made a better product. And it's not that I don't think meta can make a great product that users like, but I kind of think that, especially when the competition exists (xwixxer) compared to basically none for Facebook and Instagram
Yup. This is pretty much right on the money.
BlueSky and Threads are looking at interoperable protocols because they a) have engineers at home that think it's cool, and b) see the writing on the wall about upcoming regulation and want to preempt it. This is probably good for other networks already based on interoperability, but there are definitely a ton of open questions.
The article is 100% revisionist history written backwards to justify a knee-jerk conclusion and XMPP is indeed not dead. Or not any deader than anybody else that got washed away by WhatsApp winning the messaging wars over the 2010s.
EDIT: Re-reading my own post, it's too harsh. The article isn't "100%" revisionist history, so much as a biased insider account. The revisionist history is largely coming from both the misattribution of what happened to a deliberate move from Google and the fact that it's being misread and misquoted when people react to it.
Importantly, the article fails to establish how the current XMPP usage numbers show it's "dead" compared to back in the Google Talk days. Especially in the context of the entirely changed langscape of text messaging. So the very premise is weak from the get-go.
Yeah, it does acknowledge that it still exists and has a solid community at the very bottom.
I do excuse it, it's an article from an insider with an axe to grind that is bummed out that the Google integration didn't make them win the IM wars and that Google was bad at supporting a secondary app, as they do. That's legit.
But as a breakdown for a mallicious plan from Meta to "EEE" ActivityPub... well, it's not even pretending to be that.
And it's not even difficult to figure out.
As if Meta has any interest in actually being federated. This is like Google paying Mozilla to keep Firefox alive. As long as it's not "serious competition", it's useful. You can point to it as a "Look! Free market! No monopoly here! We're not stifling competition, we are actively funding it!!!". And Meta gets to promote how they're actively engaged in interoperability, supporting federation and all that.
I think it's even slightly different in that Firefox has some dependence on Google (a scary level, actual, if Google ends that deal Mozilla is pretty much fucked) that the fediverse doesn't - the people on the fediverse right now are enough to keep Fedi alive and moving, and I'd find it really, really hard to argue that they aren't there deliberately to avoid being subject to the whims of Meta/Twitter/Reddit, etc. Like, in a lot of ways, it's a sacrifice to be on these services because the bulk of content still exists in the proprietary silos. Because the actual protocols and main developers are also intrinsically motivated by the this separation, it's hard to picture how they could even try to extend/extinguish here.
Like, if Threads fully federates, I'd guess that quite a lot of people block their instance just to keep their hands clean. Those that interact with Threads via Fedi probably fall into the boat that I would. I want some particular content or to follow some people, just not shoveled at me however Meta decides it should be, and not in a way that they can profit from showing me ads. If Meta pulls some bullshit, it's likely the Fedi would more or less just block them entirely then give up and start a Threads account. And I have a hard time seeing a world where they go to Eugen or basically any of the other driving forces in the Fedi and are like "we need you to change Mastodon so we can [do some typical Facebook bullshit" and Eugen are like "yeah cool with me."
I think its more likely that Threads users are eventually going to see fedi users dropping a long comment or some post that is about how it's nice to have a clean ad-free feed and move clients if not over to the fedi in general. It won't be enough to really matter for Meta other than to say "see we don't have a monopoly!" and hey, if the fedi gets a little bigger it's all good for the rest of us.
Because the protocol is more or less a finished product.
And of course, there is also the fact that ActivityPub is not meant to be used as 1 on 1 talk protocol. When you have to sync with posts on other servers, that does take a toll.
Random question, but is your avatar a Windows 95 icon file?
I think so, I had it in my downloads file for like a year or two and I just found it