Technology

If this fediverse thing works like its advertised to, whatever meta does won't have any effect on the rest of the network

Should we be surprised at this, after the whole Anti-Meta Pact thing got so much traction? Like on one hand we don’t want to federate with them, but on the other we’re unhappy when they won’t?

'Member when Facebook chat was federated with Jabber?

Pepperidge Farm remembers!

There is already a list of instances which have pledged to not federate with Meta. The landscape is going to splinter into two networks.

I'm confused by this - there are various things Meta might want from the Fediverse (free content, more data, more people to serve ads to), but new users can't be one of them. No one from Mastodon is likeky to migrate to Meta's platform; the people who want to use Meta are already there.

From a product side, I think most meta users who are looking for microblogging are happy enough with Twitter. So I think it will be tough to get a lot of initial buy-in.

In regards to the embrace, extend, extinguish concerns: I can't, off the top of my head, think of any feature adds that would outweigh fediverse peoples distaste for ads or corporate social media. I mean, are flashy ai filters enough to split the user base of a reddit-alike or twitter clones? Is anyone clamoring for vr group-chats to improve their link-sharing threaded convos.

I'm not saying there's nothing to worry about, but I think the feature-poor nature of these types of services (that really aren't significantly different than old bbses) insulates at least those corners of the fediverse to some extent.

Plus, feature-creep is something people usually hate, or are uninterested in with big social media before this all started to pop off? Remember Foursquare check-ins, deals, credits, crypto, live audio...

Is this like when they let AOL onto Usenet

@giallo yeah, this is blatant embrace, extend, extinguish strategy.

I thought defederation is what people on Mastodon wanted?