@Gargron
they don't want to offend anyone. bad for business

@Gargron
Yay for any ZuckCorp platforms getting federated. I can't wait!

It'll be like September 1993 all over again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September

I am joking, of course.

But I'm going to keep my @spacehey account alive, just in case.

@Gargron between Meta and Tumblr having said they'd integrate with ActivityPub I think it's clear which way the wind is blowing.

@Gargron

Would this be anything more than a big Meta data-sucking needle stuck in the fediverse against the wishes of us who came here to escape that?

Can someone please explain how that would not be the case?

@Gargron I can't help thinking they have a hidden agenda.

@Gargron

>It also tells me that they don't see themselves as strong enough to keep users locked inside their walled garden anymore

Well, let's hope your generous vision is better then my vision, which will have them use Activity Pub to hook people into their closed garden and keep them there.

They're literally about how to grow and make more money off people, and then keep them... anything they do should be seen through that lens. It's why they are listed on the NASDAQ and they are legally required to nake as much money as they can (legally, ethics or morals has nothing to do with it) for thier share holders or they risk being sued by them.

If they pull it off it, this will be as big a debacle as FB itself is.

@martinvermeer

@Gargron Facebook Messenger used to support XMPP too and we all know how that played out

@Gargron They’ll do the same thing to ActivityPub that Facebook and Google did to XMPP. Slurp up the users and then dump it. Don’t federate to any server unless it is open source and doesn’t exploit its users.

@Gargron they were interoperable with XMMP, and then dropped that.

@Gargron what are your feelings towards Meta?

@gargron

"Interoperable social media" is a great idea if all the players have to play by the same rules.

Which in this society, in this dominant economic model, during this time in history, they certainly do not.

@Gargron I see it as a very negative signal, remember what they and Google did to XMPP. Remember the Microsoft motto of EEE Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

Meta is a centralising curse on the Internet and are just seeing new people to foist work onto, while increasing dataminig/advertising potential. Until they grow bored and slam the garden shut.

@gargron
...like they did with XMPP?
Google talk, Facebook Talk and a lot of other things used to be nicely interoperable. Basically a federated IM network. Then Facebook closed the ports, once they had the majority of users, Google migrated to another protocol, and everyone else except for a few nerds basically stopped it. End of story.

Timeo Danaos, et donas ferentes (quoted from memory may contain errors)

@gargron
Meta does noting if they don't think they can "capture the market". Non-captive audiences are not profitable.

They come to conquer, not to coexist.

@Gargron come on man, don't be a bimbo

@Gargron
is this a case of the axe claiming it's one of us because of its handle?

https://mastodon.online/@veerleslegers/110010609789422466

@Gargron bullshit, you clearly do not understand most of your users

@Gargron I'll say it now. This is NOT a good idea, and it will have SIGNIFICANT consequences.

@Gargron

#fediblock

@Gargron I suspect it'll be something that is in fact centralized but they're thinking about some sort of federation option via activity pub that they'll probably make sure is broken