{"p":"","h":{"iv":"ROXSYW+cfvEbFHu5","at":"ocxplSQjdRC3tXEtB/9/wg=="}}

@jande @keith @NGIZero @EC_NGI

> but decentralization has gained too much traction already

I don't think this is what they think. I gave a bunch of arguments on another branch of this discussion on how fedi is still fragile and weak.

But they may see fediverse as an *rising* early threat that the corporations can co-opt or stamp out before it grows much further.

2
Share
Share on Mastodon
Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Share on Linkedin
Bob Mottram

@humanetech @jande @keith @NGIZero @EC_NGI fediverse is a rising threat to the megacorps in the same way that Linux was a rising threat to Microsoft. They will try to coopt it, and they might use similar tactics to the past, such as creating a corp-funded foundation to support fediverse development, analogous to the Linux Foundation.

1
2y
Jan Delta

@humanetech @keith @NGIZero @EC_NGI i was more meaning the concept of decentralization was too big to ignore, not necessarily the implementation had too much traction to be unseated

(i had initially written a longer version of that but i ended up trimming it down to keep under 1000 char)

i wasn't intending to insinuate that fedi was secure in its position, just that fedi is big enough to sustain itself and grow on its own with even government organizations having instances now, and due to the nature of decentralisation you can't just wish it away as people will just keep running it, thus too much traction to be ignored

but i don't disagree fedi could be at risk, as if you know it's likely to keep growing and you don't want it to be fedi but can't shut it down, you might try co-opting the decentralised point from fedi, which if you got a critical mass could allow you to overshadow fedi with a more "preferable" option and at least stop fedi from being the first option new people go to

0
2y
Replies