this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
967 points (91.8% liked)

Technology

59346 readers
7390 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] somePotato@sh.itjust.works 82 points 11 months ago (14 children)

Meta has no interest in being part of the fediverse, it only wants to eliminate any posible competition.

The usual MO of buying the competitors isn't posible on the fediverse, so the way to do it is embrace, extend and extinguish

Defederating is important because is Metastasis is allowed in the fediverse it will consume the fediverse, and then we'll be right back at the corporate social media we're trying to break away from, with the surveillance, ads and nazis being welcome as long as it's profitable

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 29 points 11 months ago (13 children)

is Metastasis is allowed in the fediverse it will consume the fediverse

How?

I've seen the article about Google and XMPP, but I don't agree with its analysis. It wasn't easy to find service providers offering XMPP accounts to the public in 2004. I do not believe that Google embraced, extended, and extinguished a thriving ecosystem; there never was a thriving XMPP ecosystem.

There is a thriving ecosystem for federated microblogging, and federated discussions. While I'm sure Meta would like us to join their service, I'm not sure how allowing their users to interact with us will have that effect, nor how blocking that communication protects against it.

[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 7 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Exactly. Any analysis of "embrace extend extinguish" WRT Google/XMPP needs to answer a simple question: how many daily active users did XMPP/Jabber have in 2004?

[–] calvinbacon@r.nf -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Jabber/XMPP had more daily active users than GMail. They used it as a trojan horse. Get off their tip

[–] misk@sopuli.xyz 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That would be quite easy given that Gmail launched in 2004 as invite-only and access has been somewhat limited well into 2007.

Geez, Fedipact people talking about XMPP prove time and time again that they're too young to remember that.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

You aren't wrong. I'm not here to defend Google or Meta. But those remembering that Google killed XMPP are only remembering what they were told. Relevance "killed” XMPP. Google certainly wasn't it's white knight. But more than anything, the XMPP working groups gamble of pursuing standardization didn't result in mass adoption. When development slowed as it had to, to achieve standardization. Other services like Skype, discord, etc. All flourished and bloomed. Leaving XMPP largely irrelevant. It's still exists to this day however. And I'm logged into it this very moment. I've been logged in to an XMPP server of one sort or another nearly 24/7 365 for the last 20 years.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)