I am more surprised than I should be at how quickly the Fedi pitch went from "we want a future where everything is interoperable everywhere" to "we don't want any interaction with for profit companies".

I don't mind either way, it's all bad and I shouldn't be here in the first place, but... you know, it's weird seeing social patterns develop in real time.

[–] skrlet13@feddit.cl 17 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Fedi is not homogeneus. Each server interacts with who it wants. You could say multiple fedis exist at the same time, and both pitches represent different people.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 5 points 4 days ago

Yeah, well, don't tell them. The fields of Mastodon are still full of the debris of the Great Threads Arguments. Seemed to me everybody thought they had the correct and only Fedi.

[+] scsi@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] JayGray91@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago

[bluesky] is already engaging in Blue Checks(tm)

Isn't this good, to make sure whoever the account is, is the genuine person? Or is it bad because the arbiter of said genuineness is bluesky, and I assume there's a payment for it?

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 3 days ago

Cool.

But the pitch wasn't "everything will be interoperable unless the company doesn't mean it or wants to make money or we aren't "morally aligned", whatever that means".

I don't understand how you can be a "walled garden" and still feature interoperability with a set of open source platforms under a pre-established set protocol. This is not an ethical problem or a problem of ideology, those two things are mutually exclusive.

This also sounds a whole lot like it disproves skrlet13's point on the heterogeneous Fedi where everything fits under different but overlapping bubbles. Seems to me you think Fedi has the one moral and ethical position on this.