• Adanisi@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You could say the same thing about any EEE strategy against anything not proprietary. However, evidently it works.

    • 0x1C3B00DA@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No it doesn’t because you can’t extinguish a publically available standard when anybody can write their own software. XMPP is the horror story used to warn about EEE, but it still exists. The fediverse is a small network right now. If Meta tried to EEE it, server admins who don’t want to participate in a Meta-controlled network would not implement Meta’s extensions. The network would splinter into a Meta-fediverse and the actual fediverse, which would be smaller than it is now but still exist as a free and open network that could continue to grow.

      They can’t turn off our servers, or force us to implement their tech, or stop us from implementing freedom/privacy preserving features.

      EDIT: The reason EEE did so much damage to XMPP was because most users weren’t aware of it. XMPP got so big because non-tech savvy users didn’t even know they were using it. So when Google starting phasing it out users didn’t even realize it, they only maybe realized they couldn’t talk to one or two people now. But the fediverse has always been an explicit alternative to corporate social media and advertised that it is built on open standards that are not controlled by corporations. Its one of the key factors in a lot of the userbase’s decision to be here. If a split were to happen, that would leave the remaining open fediverse still large enough to sustain itself (even if its smaller than it is at this moment).

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It “still exists” but user adoption is basically zero, which is the opposite goal of open standards.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          User adoption here is also “basically zero.”

          Lemmy is a rounding error in population versus larger sites. It’s a walled garden.

          You cannot weaken the fediverse more than the near-total lack of adoption that already exists.

          • helenslunch@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            User adoption here is also “basically zero.”

            Yes and there are a variety of reasons why it is that way, none of which includes being picked up by a megacorp for profit and then being dumped later after they’ve extracted all the value from it.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Assuming it is picked up and dropped, the fediverse is completely unchanged. That’s my point.

              • 0x1C3B00DA@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                exactly! The end result of EEE is basically the state we’re already in. I also don’t believe that’s what Meta intends. Despite how a lot of ppl here feel about it, the fediverse isn’t worth the effort of EEE. I think its more likely that Meta knows it’s on its last leg and is looking for something to latch on to (see also: their failed metaverse initiative). And the EU’s recent regulatory drive probably makes the fediverse look even more useful for Meta to attach itself to