fer0n

Sry, I‘m still not following. I don’t understand your argument, are you saying they want to federate to gain additional users to grab data from? Because I don’t think that’s going to be a significant amount of people.

Most people don’t care about what makes the fediverse desirable to its current users, all it does is add friction to them and therefore I don’t see it growing much either.

I think the reason why meta wants to federate is this:

• it helps with anticompetitive arguments, because it’s "open" and not controlled by meta alone
• some will refuse to use anything from meta, and threads users being able to communicate with them adds value
• it won’t hurt meta, because the majority will be using their app anyways
• it helps their image

I don’t think they’re doing it to "get more data" or to "take over the fediverse". There’s nothing worth taking over and they can probably get the data anyways, it’s all openly available. So it’s basically all upside and no downside for them.

Maybe I’m not getting something here, but neither Mastodon nor Lemmy are private, you can find everything open for everyone already, so how would federation change something there? Federation doesn’t mean everyone would use their app, so they wouldn’t gain any app usage analytics.

Also I don’t get how your metaphor make sense. The amount of fediverse users is a rounding error next to threads, instagram, WhatsApp and facebook. So there’s not a "lot a tiny things that can add up", only a small amount of tiny things which don’t really add up to anything.

What have you been mostly using them for if I may ask? And how much do you use them in general?

Wdym, you got one of them and you‘ve been enjoying it, but don’t like the potential privacy implications?

I’m really curious, I can’t imagine many people choosing something other than google, but apparently google thinks enough people would to make it worth giving up almost 40% of their entire revenue.

Seems to me they’re mostly paying for the data they’re getting out of this, I can imagine they’d be making more money without the deal. Maybe slightly fewer users, but 40% more revenue.

That’s actually a really nice idea. Maybe using the same prefix for different types such as "software license" would help to differentiate. I didn’t realize that website doesn’t actually have to be a website. This is probably the way to go, thanks :)

Not to be confused with the Pareto principle.

The word is meaningless, nothing like the metaverse as described in snowcrash ever existed. If you’re talking about a multiplayer game that tries to mimic the real word then you’re right. But that’s not what the metaverse actually is…or what the word stood for, before being ripped to shreds as a buzzword.

I don’t know what’s actually going on, but this certainly sounds like something someone would say who’s about to be taken over by an "underdog" who couldn’t possibly beat them.

I‘m sure it’s not as simple, but my first take on this was: Europe doesn’t invest in EVs, but China does. They start to loose the Chinese market and are about to loose their own market to China as well. Then politics steps in to "rescue" their own companies but all that does is shelter them from the pressure to adapt and evolve, and in the end they’re beyond hope and left in the dust while the advanced Chinese cars dominate everything.

Countering subsidies with import taxes is a different story ofc. But it certainly feels like the European car industry is in decline and it’s probably their own fault. If not in Europe most certainly in China.

I should add that I have no idea what I’m talking about here, so feel free to tell me where I’m wrong.

Wait, what? I didn’t know they had newer games as well. Did that change at one point or has it always been this way?

Not for me, sadly. Feels like it’s gotten worse again