I won't be happy if they integrate federation. Ever heard the phrase "embrace, extend, extinguish"? It's a tactic used by large companies to squash growing competition.
Google used it, for example, to squash a growing open-source chat messenger protocol called XMPP. (Think of XMPP like ActivityPub.) Google allowed its Google Talk application to integrate with people using XMPP. (They embraced XMPP.)
Then, they added their own proprietary features that wouldn't work with normal XMPP users. (They extended, or built on top of, XMPP.)
Then, they cut support for XMPP integration, leaving it effectively dead in the water. XMPP users suddenly had a list of Google Talk users in their friend list who would never appear online again, whereas Google Talk users maybe had one or two people in their friend list who looked like they'd moved on from Google Talk. (They extinguished XMPP.)
Now imagine that happening with Threads. You, a Mastodon user, follow a bunch of people who just happen to be on Threads. There are some things Threads users can do that you can't, but you don't really mind. It works well enough. Then, one day, Threads stops working with Mastodon. Suddenly, over half of the people you followed are no longer available to you. The only way you can follow them again... is to join Threads.
"ever heard of embrace extend extinguish???"
Lololol yes. And the ploum article people parrot about xmpp too.
There is a lot of groupthink in the fediverse and not enough critical thinking.
Threads integrating will highlight the serious value in activitypub. I personally don't know why they would integrate unless they want to just completely dismember Twitter and blue sky or get in front of govt regulations.
The danger here is that Threads will suddenly be > 99% of the activity and user base in one fell swoop. You might find that Mastodon doesn't scale as well as you think. It might also be that Threads deliberately or half assedly doesn't federate properly, so that being a non-Threads user means posts aren't visible inside of Threads or suffer from down ranking or other issues.
I'd add that historically federation hasn't gone well when a big fish enters a small pond. XMPP was cited above as an example of that. At the time you had proprietary services like AOL / AIM, ICQ, Instant Messenger. XMPP was going to liberate us from proprietary and even Google got on board for a bit before dumping it.
The problem with big companies is they want all the cake to themselves and abhor having to yield control or cooperate with others. Meta might make nice noises about ActivityPub while they're the underdog to Twitter but you could see them rapidly change their tune if Twitter went under.
I'm surprised I don't hear as much of "I wan't literally nothing to do with Meta in any way shape or form" sentiment (which happens to be my feelings on the matter).
Federation is the most interesting thing thats happened on the internet since http became the standard in my opinion, and I've been kicking around since Telnet, BBCs, IRC, Etc.
Meta doesn't want to play nice, they want to see if they can own everything, in my opinion. "Oh, people are doing this cool thing that we can't yet monitize and make our shareholders richer? See if we can somehow assimilate it, at a loss at first, as ususal of course."
I'm not sure about embrace, extend, extinguish, but it does sound like it'd be the way here. Either way, why the living fuck can we not have anything interconnected that a megacorp can't decide they'll take over? Why can't we keep that from happening, even when small independent individuals are running the server?
The entire point of ActivityPub is that it's open and EEE-proof. If the users leave it for something proprietary but better, then it isn't EEE, it's just a better product.
Simply being open source is not an achievement in itself. The platform has to be user friendly, stable and future-proof. Most FOSS and federated alternatives create a platform and then endlessly harp on federation like that's the end. No, that's the beginning. The point is to make a product better than Big Tech WHILE maintaining federation and Foss status. THAT is what makes a platform EEE proof.
If the users leave it for something proprietary but better, then it isn’t EEE, it’s just a better product.
That's literally the second E, extend.
Nothing is EEE-proof. If Meta puts even just 10 billion dollars into developing and marketing their fediverse EEE project, it's going to be better for the average user (I.e: billions of people already using Meta's services) than what a couple of FOSS devs made for free in their spare time.
That's not what extend means in this context. In this context, extend means to add non-standard features to the protocol which only your implementation understands.
If they embrace ActivityPub and then start adding their own proprietary features that are enough for users to switch over, and Mastodon doesn't, then it's not an "evil agenda", it's Meta adding an essential feature that the users want and Mastodon isn't able to add and ultimately Meta making a better product.
If Mastodon or Lemmy are truly superior and the future, then the product should be the best in the market, not DUE to federation but DESPITE it.
That's one thing that everyone here forgets because right now federation is hard to get into, and the only people here are those who put the effort in because they believe in federation. That is the reason for their tolerance in an inferior product. But if that's the case, then it will never be mainstream as long as the product is inferior.
ActivityPub is open source. This means, by definition, Meta are allowed to use it. They could easily do the extinguish part by just never using the protocol. If another platform existing is such a threat to the Fediverse then we're doomed to failure in the first place.
While Google removing XMPP no doubt helped sink nails into the coffin, WhatsApp played a bigger role in the death of XMPP than Google removing it from Talk. It was increasingly irrelevant for a now growing number of people.
The point of "embrace, extend, extinguish" is primarily to get rid of any potential future competition. So, for example, it would not work if Facebook tried to do it with Twitter since the latter already reached critical mass and can stand on its own without outside help, barring bad leadership. It typically only works if the party that's being "embraced" is smaller than the company that's "embracing".
To your point of ActivityPub being open source: that's true, so Meta is, legally speaking, free to use it. However, barring any restrictions in the license, they're also free to add any proprietary features to Threads that don't work on Mastodon. It's similar to Google Chrome: Google has their open-source Chromium web browser, but they also have a version called Chrome that has features that are not open-source.
I won't be happy if they integrate federation. Ever heard the phrase "embrace, extend, extinguish"? It's a tactic used by large companies to squash growing competition.
Google used it, for example, to squash a growing open-source chat messenger protocol called XMPP. (Think of XMPP like ActivityPub.) Google allowed its Google Talk application to integrate with people using XMPP. (They embraced XMPP.)
Then, they added their own proprietary features that wouldn't work with normal XMPP users. (They extended, or built on top of, XMPP.)
Then, they cut support for XMPP integration, leaving it effectively dead in the water. XMPP users suddenly had a list of Google Talk users in their friend list who would never appear online again, whereas Google Talk users maybe had one or two people in their friend list who looked like they'd moved on from Google Talk. (They extinguished XMPP.)
Now imagine that happening with Threads. You, a Mastodon user, follow a bunch of people who just happen to be on Threads. There are some things Threads users can do that you can't, but you don't really mind. It works well enough. Then, one day, Threads stops working with Mastodon. Suddenly, over half of the people you followed are no longer available to you. The only way you can follow them again... is to join Threads.
"ever heard of embrace extend extinguish???"
Lololol yes. And the ploum article people parrot about xmpp too.
There is a lot of groupthink in the fediverse and not enough critical thinking.
Threads integrating will highlight the serious value in activitypub. I personally don't know why they would integrate unless they want to just completely dismember Twitter and blue sky or get in front of govt regulations.
The danger here is that Threads will suddenly be > 99% of the activity and user base in one fell swoop. You might find that Mastodon doesn't scale as well as you think. It might also be that Threads deliberately or half assedly doesn't federate properly, so that being a non-Threads user means posts aren't visible inside of Threads or suffer from down ranking or other issues.
I'd add that historically federation hasn't gone well when a big fish enters a small pond. XMPP was cited above as an example of that. At the time you had proprietary services like AOL / AIM, ICQ, Instant Messenger. XMPP was going to liberate us from proprietary and even Google got on board for a bit before dumping it.
The problem with big companies is they want all the cake to themselves and abhor having to yield control or cooperate with others. Meta might make nice noises about ActivityPub while they're the underdog to Twitter but you could see them rapidly change their tune if Twitter went under.
I'm surprised I don't hear as much of "I wan't literally nothing to do with Meta in any way shape or form" sentiment (which happens to be my feelings on the matter).
Federation is the most interesting thing thats happened on the internet since http became the standard in my opinion, and I've been kicking around since Telnet, BBCs, IRC, Etc.
Meta doesn't want to play nice, they want to see if they can own everything, in my opinion. "Oh, people are doing this cool thing that we can't yet monitize and make our shareholders richer? See if we can somehow assimilate it, at a loss at first, as ususal of course."
I'm not sure about embrace, extend, extinguish, but it does sound like it'd be the way here. Either way, why the living fuck can we not have anything interconnected that a megacorp can't decide they'll take over? Why can't we keep that from happening, even when small independent individuals are running the server?
The entire point of ActivityPub is that it's open and EEE-proof. If the users leave it for something proprietary but better, then it isn't EEE, it's just a better product.
Simply being open source is not an achievement in itself. The platform has to be user friendly, stable and future-proof. Most FOSS and federated alternatives create a platform and then endlessly harp on federation like that's the end. No, that's the beginning. The point is to make a product better than Big Tech WHILE maintaining federation and Foss status. THAT is what makes a platform EEE proof.
That's literally the second E, extend.
Nothing is EEE-proof. If Meta puts even just 10 billion dollars into developing and marketing their fediverse EEE project, it's going to be better for the average user (I.e: billions of people already using Meta's services) than what a couple of FOSS devs made for free in their spare time.
That's not what extend means in this context. In this context, extend means to add non-standard features to the protocol which only your implementation understands.
If they embrace ActivityPub and then start adding their own proprietary features that are enough for users to switch over, and Mastodon doesn't, then it's not an "evil agenda", it's Meta adding an essential feature that the users want and Mastodon isn't able to add and ultimately Meta making a better product.
If Mastodon or Lemmy are truly superior and the future, then the product should be the best in the market, not DUE to federation but DESPITE it.
That's one thing that everyone here forgets because right now federation is hard to get into, and the only people here are those who put the effort in because they believe in federation. That is the reason for their tolerance in an inferior product. But if that's the case, then it will never be mainstream as long as the product is inferior.
ActivityPub is open source. This means, by definition, Meta are allowed to use it. They could easily do the extinguish part by just never using the protocol. If another platform existing is such a threat to the Fediverse then we're doomed to failure in the first place.
While Google removing XMPP no doubt helped sink nails into the coffin, WhatsApp played a bigger role in the death of XMPP than Google removing it from Talk. It was increasingly irrelevant for a now growing number of people.
The point of "embrace, extend, extinguish" is primarily to get rid of any potential future competition. So, for example, it would not work if Facebook tried to do it with Twitter since the latter already reached critical mass and can stand on its own without outside help, barring bad leadership. It typically only works if the party that's being "embraced" is smaller than the company that's "embracing".
To your point of ActivityPub being open source: that's true, so Meta is, legally speaking, free to use it. However, barring any restrictions in the license, they're also free to add any proprietary features to Threads that don't work on Mastodon. It's similar to Google Chrome: Google has their open-source Chromium web browser, but they also have a version called Chrome that has features that are not open-source.