this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59192 readers
2547 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] menemen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[–] Hotzilla@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

Embrace, extend, extinguish. Only proven way to destroy decentralized, free, open source solutions.

First stage embrace might not even be malicious, but with corporations it will eventually lead to someone thinking: how can we monetize our position. It is just nature how business works.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish

[–] f4te@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

i'll join the voices saying this is bad for the fediverse, and bad for users in general. there are LOTS of normie users who are joining threads who will be shut off from learning about all the cool other servers if everyone blocks them. this will mean users who want to interact with them need to sign up on Threads, which is what we don't want.

what we want is that users on Threads see other servers, learn that they're better, and migrate over.

don't block Threads, show them how much better we are.

[–] scorpionix@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

999/1000 users won't do any research on how 'this new fb thing' actually works beyond 'where can I sign up'. All they want is a stream of content which the greater fediverse provides free of charge. It is going to be the whole Reddit situation with one more step. Portray yourself as the shining beacon of love and liberty, slowly start creeping in more monetisation and then build a wall once you get big enough. Meta and the overwhelming majority of the user base don't care who is morally 'better'. That's not how capitalism works.

[–] Shippuu@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

I really hope the fediverse can block out the meta crap…

[–] teri@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago

Spontaneous idea of how to use copyright law for keeping Meta out of the Fediverse (more for fun):

Introduction: Parts of the Fediverse, including Mastodon, are software licensed under the APGL license. This license is a great choice because it forces the ones running the software to grant users access to the source code. GPL for example would allow to run proprietary services based on GPL code. The AGPL does not. Companies like Meta and Google will likely not use AGPL code because it might force them to also publish their proprietary systems behind the scenes. However, this does not help much for keeping the Fediverse save. They simply implement their own software which will not be open source.

Therefore we may need another approach. Defederating is the simplest and in my opinion currently the best. It's easy and keeps people in control.

However, there could be some 'automatic' approach using copyright law. It's a hack which allows to use existing law to regulate the way instances can federate.:

  • instances would Federate only if the other side can provide a certain piece of information called X
  • X is protected by copyright law, therefore by default, instances are not allowed to provide X
  • However, X is released under a license which for permits to copy and distribute X under certain conditions
  • The conditions allow to tune who can legally federate
  • Conditions could be
    • The server software must be AGPL licensed
    • The instance must not be owned by a company with a certain amount of annual revenue

Open question is, who owns the copyright of X?

[–] MargotRobbie@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not worried at all about Zuck taking over Mastodon at all, they'll try but they are just so incompetent, because literally every single product idea they have they either stole or bought from somebody else. Great tech, terrible products, zero originality is the Facebook mantra and that is because they have a delusional CEO that they can't fire, because Zuck has delude himself into thinking he's an "ideas" guy like Jobs instead of an "executions" guy like Bezos that he really is, and until he realizes that, he will always fail.

(also, delusional for actually thinking Ready Player One is a good book)

If making a TikTok clone didn't get people to switch from TikTok, why would they think making a Twitter clone is going to get people to switch from Twitter?

The only way I see Facebook being a threat is when they give up on making their Twitter clone and start providing easy subscription service hosting for Mastodon/Lemmy to EEE. THAT would be the time to worry.

[–] luckystarr@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

While you may dismiss Zuckerberg as delusional, he's shown a talent for using others' ideas and making them profitable under Facebook. The success of Instagram and WhatsApp is proof. Google+ is nowhere to be seen anymore.

As for Mastodon, underestimating Meta's potential threat, particularly federating with Mastodon (this can be seen as "easy hosting" of something like Mastodon), might be a mistake. Even without originality, they have the resources to cause significant disruption.