this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2023
90 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37747 readers
347 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
Los@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social
remington@beehaw.org
90
Why Mozilla is betting on a decentralized social networking future (techcrunch.com)
submitted 1 year ago by JRepin@lemmy.ml to c/technology@beehaw.org
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/7456748

The mission-driven tech company behind the Firefox browser, Pocket reader and other apps is now investing its energy into the so-called “fediverse” — a collection of decentralized social networking applications, like Mastodon, that communicate with one another over the ActivityPub protocol.

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sqgl@beehaw.org 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The fediverse sounds just like what we all thought the internet was back in the early 90's.

Apart from Mozilla sabotaging the ideal in ways others describe here I can think of other ways it could be hijacked by corporate interests...

eg elimination of net neutrality so that ISP's prioritise traffic to paying servers, then doing deals with the biggest servers until we again only have a handful of options if we want wide reach?

Humans are suckers for hype and corporations know hype. While that is dangerous for democracy I have lost interest in communicating with the masses so being part of a relatively small network of people is just fine by me.

[–] Wooster@startrek.website 14 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I just read the entire article and I don’t see why Mozilla really wants in on the Fediverse. It covers a lot of how it wants in, but not the driving motivation.

My best guess is they want to be the next Facebook/Twitter. They see a window and think it’s not something to miss.

Never forget: “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish”, even if it’s from a relatively liked company like Mozilla.

[–] plenary_delusion@feddit.nl 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I doubt they want to be a big instance — in the end, they simply don't have the resources for it.

If anything, I imagine that this "investment" is simply part of their bigger market positioning as "privacy provider", along with Mozilla VPN and email service.

Which might be somewhat profitable for them, but I'd say it's also good for the consumers — they at least become aware of the product.

[–] bedrooms@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

I think so. They don't even have the server to store Firefox user credentials.

[–] Kaldo@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I am a bit cynical about it as well, but on the other hand mozilla's entire shtick and what's keeping them alive is their privacy oriented, anti-google approach. If they enter the fediverse they'd probably stick to these principles since they are the only reason why you'd want to go with them over the competitors in the first place, right? So it could be a good thing maybe.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Success might eventually breed a monster but let's cross that bridge when we come to it like we are doing with Google and FB etc. by seeking alternatives.

Plus, I'm not sure a monster in the fediverse is nearly as bad a thing when you can easily jump to a different provider.

[–] Wooster@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago

The risk is that Mozilla is in a position to add features and stability at a rate that smaller developers cannot possibly replicate. By doing so they risk becoming the defacto standard (embrace/extend). Then they get to dictate what the entire platform should or should not do. And you’re either on board or left in the dust. And if Mozilla decides that moderating a social network is too much of a liability, then we’re at extinguish.

To be frank, I’m so jaded by big players in this late stage capitalist world that I don’t trust anyone I might otherwise be fine with, like Mozilla.

[–] flashgnash@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think the problem there is that if the fediverse were to be adopted by the masses the general population wouldn't pay attention/wouldn't even care and just use whatever instance was most convenient for them, and if an insurance has a large proportion of users it inherently has power over the entire network

If meta entered properly like everyone thought they might, they could massively control the entire fediverse by threatening defederation with instances that don't comply with their rules. Because they have so many users and generate so much content no instance wants to be cut off

That example probably wouldn't work for the fediverse as it stands right now as we're pretty much all nerds, dislike companies like meta and probably wouldn't enjoy the content generated by its users anyway but it stands as an example

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

My "secret" is I'm fine defederating with fb or any other larger player because nerds are all I really want to socialize with anyway. Those of us here would lose nothing by fb joining and defederating.

[–] flashgnash@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I get that, that was the whole point of that comment is the likes of us wouldn't want to interact with Facebook but as I said that's just an example.

Imagine the chaos if Reddit implemented activitypub, or discord with their threads feature, or even just a new instance like world that snaps up a lot of users for one reason or another, plays it safe for a while and acts benign until they've got the bulk of the users and then starts imposing their rules on other instances

[–] Wooster@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, we all probably said similar things about Google 20 years ago. It was a liked company that brought a lot of cool innovations to the web. Or even relatively more recently with Chrome. At launch it was liked, but now it’s weaponized.

To be fair, there are far, FAR worse players than Mozilla. I might even be so far as to be convinced they have benign interests at heart at the moment. But corruption always follows domination.

[–] Kaldo@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah but Google won, they became the biggest and now can do whatever they want. Unless Mozilla gets close (and I dont think they ever will, even remotely), I dont think they're in the same situation. Until then I kinda just root for them to survive and exist as competition, even if they have such a small market share compared to google.

[–] ripcord@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

Never forget: “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish”

It's interesting you picked that, since the origins of that phrase is why Mozilla was even founded. And why they worked so damn hard for so many years on web standards.

[–] OneRedFox@beehaw.org 14 points 1 year ago

Mozilla has been a big advocate for a decentralized web for awhile now. Joining the Fediverse seems like a natural move for them; honestly surprised they didn't do it sooner.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

At least as Mozilla exists now, I think it would be much harder for it to become "enshitified".

Preface: IANAL, just going off my best understanding.

The Mozilla Corporation is actually wholly owned by the Mozilla Foundation, a non-profit. Profits that the corporation generates are the property of the Foundation, which falls under all the usual restrictions for spending and reporting that 501.c.3 orgs have. So at least as they exist now, Mozilla's profits cannot be used to enrich executives or investors, which is the driving motivation behind the enshitification cycle.

[–] bedrooms@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Never forget: “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish”, even if it’s from a relatively liked company like Mozilla.

If you take that view, you will never be satisfied by the official motivation expressed by a non-profit organization. That's why you don't see why – you are refusing. But are you wrong? Only Mozilla knows.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 1 year ago

🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

Click here to see the summaryConsumers are hungry for a new way of social networking, where trust and safety are paramount and power isn’t centralized with a Big Tech CEO in charge… or at least that’s what Mozilla believes.

The mission-driven tech company behind the Firefox browser, Pocket reader and other apps is now investing its energy into the so-called “fediverse” — a collection of decentralized social networking applications, like Mastodon, that communicate with one another over the ActivityPub protocol.

And, as a wholly owned subsidiary of a nonprofit, the company says it’s not motivated by generating earnings for shareholders or returning a VC investment, allowing it to progress with a collaborative approach where it takes in input from a lot of different voices.

“I think that it’s a pretty poor track record by existing companies that are only model motivated by profit and just insane user growth, and are willing to tolerate and amplify really toxic content because it looks like engagement,” she says.

However, the company is aiming to tackle some of the obstacles that have prevented users from joining and participating in the fediverse so far, including the technical hurdles around onboarding, finding people to follow and discovering interesting content to discuss.

What Mozilla wants to accomplish, then, is to help reconfigure the Mastodon onboarding process so that when someone — including a publisher or creator — joins its instance (or the fediverse in general) they’re able to build their audience with more ease.

Saved 86% of original text.