The more the better, the less power places like Meta have to change the protocol. For example if Meta pushed for a change to the protocol with just us small guys, we would all push back and say no, but really Meta doesn’t have much to lose if they did it anyway. (We would lose access to them and vis-versa, but it’s Meta after all.)
Now if bigger players are joining like Flipboard, all of a sudden changing that protocol means that they could lose bigger chunks of data, losing flipboard would be a bigger deal.
I’m just surmizing, but I think it’ll be good overall. Legitimizes activitypub more and makes it harder for people to change willy nilly
IMO the single biggest risk to the fediverse is allowing one instance to control everything. I think there needs to be a set of ideologies that all fediverse users agree to abide by for the good of the fediverse, the first of which would be: instances should not federate with other instances that are too big. I don’t think “too big” needs to be strictly defined, it could be left up to people to decide, but if users or other instances think you’re idea of “too big” is too big, they are all free to leave/defederate from you too.
Idk anything about Flipboard, much less how many users they have, but if it’s much larger than existing servers, then I think they should make an effort to shrink, or at least freeze signups, or be defederated.
Also yes, I think mastodon.social and lemmy.world are too big and should make an effort to downsize asap.
Meta doesn’t have much to lose if they did it anyway. (We would lose access to them and vis-versa, but it’s Meta after all.)
Meta’s only reason to join the fediverse, is to avoid getting hit by antitrust laws in Europe. It’s not in their interest to make any incompatible changes… and they can’t threaten us “small guys” with reverting to the status quo we chose ourselves.
The more the better, the less power places like Meta have to change the protocol. For example if Meta pushed for a change to the protocol with just us small guys, we would all push back and say no, but really Meta doesn’t have much to lose if they did it anyway. (We would lose access to them and vis-versa, but it’s Meta after all.)
Now if bigger players are joining like Flipboard, all of a sudden changing that protocol means that they could lose bigger chunks of data, losing flipboard would be a bigger deal.
I’m just surmizing, but I think it’ll be good overall. Legitimizes activitypub more and makes it harder for people to change willy nilly
IMO the single biggest risk to the fediverse is allowing one instance to control everything. I think there needs to be a set of ideologies that all fediverse users agree to abide by for the good of the fediverse, the first of which would be: instances should not federate with other instances that are too big. I don’t think “too big” needs to be strictly defined, it could be left up to people to decide, but if users or other instances think you’re idea of “too big” is too big, they are all free to leave/defederate from you too.
Idk anything about Flipboard, much less how many users they have, but if it’s much larger than existing servers, then I think they should make an effort to shrink, or at least freeze signups, or be defederated.
Also yes, I think mastodon.social and lemmy.world are too big and should make an effort to downsize asap.
Meta’s only reason to join the fediverse, is to avoid getting hit by antitrust laws in Europe. It’s not in their interest to make any incompatible changes… and they can’t threaten us “small guys” with reverting to the status quo we chose ourselves.