fwiw, XMPP/Slack/Discord/etc basically solve the same problem that IRC already solved. Software Engineers just reinvent the wheel again and again as everyone loves a green field.

That said, Meta cannot be trusted. They're going to do a year or two of embrace and extend, pretending to be good citizens. Then they will invent some crisis that causes them to want to de-federate, likely that content on other servers is not moderated to their standards or that convoluted features of their extended protocol are not being met. This take seems pretty spot on to me.

[–] Cqrd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Software Engineers just reinvent the wheel again and again as everyone loves a green field.

While somewhat true, this is also a dumb take. Not everyone working at Slack/Discord/etc can work on IRC. They're making competing businesses, not just wanting to re-solve the same problem but wanting to do it with a new code base.

[–] paf0@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I suppose that applies more to XMPP, but not everything has to be a business, and you don't have to be an ass about it.

[–] Cqrd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You're the one being an ass about it, saying developers always want a greenfield project. Tons of people contribute where they can, but we still need a job. So if somebody wants to make a business making a new chat client so they can make enough money to feed their family, well, that's the capitalistic hellhole we've found ourselves in.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Banana_man@reddthat.com 54 points 10 months ago

Nothing good will come of federating with meta, the fediverse should simply stay out of their reach and realize whatever potential it may have.

I think there might be another way to hurt it though that this article doesn't seem to mention. Funnily enough, it's also a theme of an asterix and obelix comic book, which the introduction referenced. This way would be monetization. Threads might try to "help" the fediverse by feeding the bigger instances money, therefore the hosts of the instances would be more open to negotiations with meta and accepting of their policies.

I will compare this to YouTube which started paying all it's big creators until they became dependent on the platform for a living and then started slowly implementing more and more rules that limit their freedom of expression. Remember how much PewDiePie used to swear in his getting over it videos? In another "pew news" or whatever it was called video I happened to watch he directly mentioned that he censors himself because he isn't going to put his job on the line just to say "fuck". Profit invites creators to comply with YouTube's regulations even if they aren't enforced violently always.

The same pattern was used in the asterix comic I mention above. Ceasar decides to open a building complex almost next to the problematic for him village and so the residents flood the markets and are shocked at the low prices compared to Rome. As a result, the villagers start increasing prices and advertising their goods and services, neglecting their previous morals and ethos. In the end, however, the Romans lose again after (panoramix, I think?) makes them realize how much separation this has caused them, living only for their business. As a result they kick the Romans out of their village, once again united, and Caesar's plans fail.

I think both these stories could serve as a potential warning to anyone who might consider selling themselves out if meta adopts such a policy.

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 43 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The year is 2023. The whole Internet is under the control of the GAFAM empire. All of it? Well, not entirely. Because a few small villages are resisting the oppression.

European detected.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 7 points 10 months ago

Hey, that's us!!

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Rokin@lemm.ee 40 points 10 months ago (4 children)

So Google used Microsoft's "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" strategy and looks like Facebook is aiming to use ut as well

[–] 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works 14 points 10 months ago

Every corp is aiming at that. It's a strategy that worked very well for MS (and the CIA).

[–] EnderMB@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

To be fair, Microsoft didn't invent this, they only showed that it could be implemented in the tech industry. To some extent, basically every big tech company does this now.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

These days, we just call it “the stages of enshitification”. And basically every large tech company is doing something like that

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] moitoi@feddit.de 36 points 10 months ago (1 children)

For mastodon if it can help:

Open your favorite text editor and write threads.net
Save it as csv
On your profile on Mastodon, click "edit profile" and scroll to "import/export".
Choose "import", it will open a menu.
In this menu be sure to click on "Following list" and choose "Domain blocking list".
Browse and select your CSV
Click upload

[–] Aurelius@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

This is a fascinating read and very relevant given that Meta is moving closer to connecting Threads (per OP). The article gives a good example with How Google killed XMPP

[–] misk@sopuli.xyz 13 points 10 months ago (3 children)

The article lacks some details that are inconvenient to the point it makes. What was the state of XMPP before being adopted by tech giants and after they dropped it / walled it off? What could be done to prevent it?

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

I just remember that Google used to be able to talk to Facebook and it was awesome.

Before that I used Trillian which had to log in to all the networks. There was one beautiful moment in time where you could just use an XMPP client and you were able to reach most of the people you know

[–] 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What was the state of XMPP before being adopted by tech giants and after they dropped it / walled it off?

It was slowly gaining a user base. It was a good alternative to MSN Messenger and other big corp messaging protocols (Yahoo Talk or whatever it was called).

[–] misk@sopuli.xyz 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yes, it was a good alternative, and it remains good alternative now although Matrix seems way more popular these days. Nothing really changed regardless of adopting XMPP because with a hindsight we know that for tech giants it's the platform and not protocol that captures mainstream popularity:

[–] 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago

That is true. Discord - gaming, Messenger - FB. Google just couldn't tie it with any social network, so it flopped... and their numerous attempts at creating one.

[–] Aurelius@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

That's a good point. That would be helpful context

[–] independantiste@sh.itjust.works 18 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I think this is more of a preventative move to one-up the EU on interoperability

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.

[–] whofearsthenight@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] mojo@lemm.ee 17 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Meta does not give a shit to absorb the fedi. We are like a thousandth of their size, just a blip on their radar. I have no idea where people get this idea of self importance that Meta cares about their 10 user server.

[–] Banana_man@reddthat.com 19 points 10 months ago (2 children)

If they didn't why would they develop tools to federate? It's obvious that the threads project was sped up significantly following musk's obliteration of Twitter, so they wouldn't go out of their way to implement such a feature if they didn't have a very specific reason for it.

A company's goal is maximization of profit, so don't assume they intend anything else. The activitypub userbase is too small to be a significant addition to their userbase but in this way they can destroy it before it escapes their control. They don't take risks. Mastodon could seriously compete with threads and it's gaining popularity. If one more big boom happens it might be too late to stop the fediverse from competing with meta in the most cost efficient way possible. Do not be lured in by the false sense of security, meta wants us to help maximize their profit. We aren't doing that right now so Meta wants to stop us (or limit us, whatever they deem more profitable)

[–] APassenger@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

They don't take risks.

Quibble: Meta took a huge write off because their metaverse didn't get the reception they hoped.

I think they take risks, just calculated ones. And sometimes... A founders ambition.

[–] Banana_man@reddthat.com 3 points 10 months ago

It is as you say, but look at the difference. Allowing metaverse to grow is only going to hurt them, while the potential profits from the metaverse could be massive. They deemed it a risk worth taking because of the potential success. Meta won't leave the fate of lemmy up to chance, because they decided we are not very likely to disappear in time.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Meta's involvement is to "poison pill" fediverse if it really starts to take off. Or just outright buy the bigger/best parts and leave the rest wither...

[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I bet XMPP users were saying the same thing about google talk, maybe try reading the article?

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] XYZinferno@lemmy.basedcount.com 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Might be because of Threads, and Meta seeking to use ActivityPub themselves.

I don't disagree with you though; I don't think the fedi is big enough at the moment to register as more than a blip on their radar, as you said.

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Microsoft was using Embrace Extend, and Destroy against Linux 25 yrs ago when it was a blip compared to MS.

This tactic is designed to be used against potential opponents before they become a real threat.

[–] Minarble@aussie.zone 7 points 10 months ago

It costs peanuts to eliminate a weed in your yard when it first sprouts.

It also gets the jump on your neighbours who might be interested in this little weed as well.

Also you can’t have unmonetized weeds popping up everywhere they might inject colour and variety into your barren add riddled hellscape.

[–] G020B@lemmy.zip 14 points 10 months ago (2 children)

If something killed XMPP for me - it was Matrix. On open source replacement that is not only more popular, but has more active development and it's easier to use. No big company required. And since XMPP is still alive for its niche user base and EU is probably the reason for Threads federation - I don't think this is the right hill to die on.

[–] amki@feddit.de 2 points 10 months ago

Also Matrix can bridge to XMPP, of course you wouldn't because nobody uses XMPP.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 11 points 10 months ago

Given new EU legislation, it is likely that in the future, they may be forced to correctly implement ActivityPub, and to federate with instances not violating their content policies.

[–] fl42v@lemmy.ml 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well, if met~~h~~a decides to interop, activity pub can launch some propaganda to make users "just switch", I guess. I mean it's somewhat different from the situation with xmpp and google as most sane ppl already know fb's crap isn't good for your data... So maybe smth like "remember that cool shiny thingy people were leaving xitter for? Guess what, now you can talk there with your grandma without subjecting yourself to fb's shady practices" could work given interop works good enough.

P.S. that specification under a EULA actually sounds like a good idea if you put it a bit differently: whatever implements this specification should be published under one of $insert_a_set_of_licenses. Then whatever proprietary garbage creator that decides to join will be forced to do this via bridges, and others can tell them to fix their crap 😁

[–] JGrffn@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

most sane ppl already know fb's crap isn't good for your data

Bold of you to assume they care enough to do something about it. It took half a second for more than half of my friends to jump onto threads when it launched. None of them ever considered the fediverse before that. People just flock to whatever the big companies do.

[–] fl42v@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago

Sure, but, on the other hand, when crapple rolled out their "are you OK with zuck watching you sleep" switches, ppl suddenly declined that generous offer... So I'm inclined to think they kinda care, but convenience is more valued.

Well, okay then, depending on how that interop is implemented, it may be possible to make some kind of one click-ish data importing, idk. Not messages, but at least friends, communities and similar stuff. Just speculating, tho

[–] MargotRobbie@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

We already talked about XMPP a few months ago, if anyone is interested in reading about some experiences with XMPP for more context.

https://lemmy.world/post/1121594

[–] amki@feddit.de 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

No. There was nothing to extend and extinguish with XMPP. It was a dead on arrival protocol that nobody ever used seriously. I've been to the internet at that time and what people actually used was: AIM, ICQ, MSN and possibly even Yahoo!. (IRC for the nerds and Counter-Strike)

It was exactly the other way around. Nobody ever used XMPP, then Google opened federation on their first chat and suddenly someone was actually reachable via XMPP which was a cool thing for some nerds that were into XML then, but when Google noticed that it only imports problems with nothing to gain from the XMPP network they just shut it off.

At the time nobody cared because the people accidentally using XMPP didn't give a shit about it because they used Google not XMPP in the first place.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 2 points 10 months ago

Some governments I think and the BBC are already using mastodon, and honestly, those big organisations used things like tweetdeck before instead of mainstream twitter apps. I can feasibly see big organisations like governments, politicians and media sites not wanting to use threads, and instead using their own instances to interact with threads users.

load more comments