this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2023
879 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37551 readers
398 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If Meta wants to make an app that is competitive with other fediverse apps and is actually good, I don't see the problem. If they want to harm other fediverse instances then I do. How much harm could they do to the fediverse? Would they then block off all other apps when their app is the biggest essentially?
they could make their own custom version of the fediverse, slowly diverging from the core open source version, then push the actual fediverse into obscurity, the same way Google Chat killed XMPP. Imagine a new Meta-controlled "fediverse" where you can only have an instance if you use their code and their rules.
You don't have to use it though?
No, of course not. You didn't have to use Google chat either, but here we are. I never used it but ICQ is still dead. My point is that the billion dollar companies have more power than just making instances. Once their instances have features that the rest of the fediverse doesn't, people will be motivated to use their version instead because "it's more convenient and I can talk to my friends."
So your complaint is that you don't want them to do it better?
It's not that they might do something better.
It's that they have a history of encouraging the competition to adopt an open standard (to gain the active users), and then purposely scuttling the standard in order to sink the competition (and leave the users with no functioning alternative).
If they do it better without contributing the improvements back to the standard then that's something to complain about. Because then all they're doing is a different, better, proprietary standard and they never really had any intention of embracing an open source project.
Well, FOSS. Open source projects can still be proprietary, as just because you can see the source code doesn't mean you have legal permission to use it as you wish.
Anyway, there's a simple rule about this: capitalist corporations NEVER have the intention of embracing FOSS. Like, people want to give M$ lots of credit for contributing to the Linux kernel for a while, but the truth is that their motivation for doing so wasn't to improve on Linux, but to gain advantage for their own hypervisor (and then cloud) platform. They'd tried to take over the web server space with Windows Server and realized it was never going to happen, so they took a step lower and tried to get every instance of Linux-based web servers running on Azure. Tailoring the Linux kernel for their brand of virtual environment was NOT done for the benefit of Linux developers or users.