It prevents that specific strategy that would culminate in extinguishing. The idea being to siphon users away from other platforms, then add features that other platforms won’t or can’t implement, and use that to create an image of their own platform being better, having more features.
If they succeed at having a lot of users oblivious to what’s happening, they will use those features, and when they don’t work for people on other platforms, they will blame the other platforms instead of their own, further cultivating the image that other platforms are broken/unreliable.
In the end, they leave other platforms unable to compete, forcing users to either have a “broken”/incomplete experience, or migrate to their platforms. (Or leave the fediverse entirely). Or they can simply stop federating at that point, after users have left for their platform, cutting off the rest of the fediverse from content hosted on their platform.
The way defederating prevents a strategy like that is by cutting them off before they can get a foothold - they can’t make users feel left out if they don’t get to influence their experience in the first place.
Embrace: Join the fediverse with your existing user base that dwarfs the fediverse’s existing user base, and with infinitely more money.
Extend: Use your size, in terms of users and capital, to steer the direction of the ActivityPub fediverse standard to your advantage and your competitors’ disadvantage. You see everyone else as a competitor because you are a corporation seeking to monopolize the user base for profit.
Google is adding code to Chrome that will send tamper-proof information about your operating system and other software, and share it with websites. Google says this will reduce ad fraud. In practice, it reduces your control over your own computer, and is likely to mean that some websites will block access for everyone who’s not using an “approved” operating system and browser. It also raises the barrier to entry for new browsers, something Google employees acknowledged in an unofficial explainer for the new feature, Web Environment Integrity (WEI).
I want to share information and to communicate. I don’t want every bowel movement tracked and monetizes. I don’t want 30 cross site requests when going to a news site. A single story should not require 10MB of JavaScript libraries.
I have no doubt that most of the authors of the original internet are aghast at what their high-minded creation has itself created.
That’s a common misconception actually, any and all data available via federation is already public and easily scrapable even without running an instance of one’s own. Defederating only hides (in this case) Threads content from users on the instance doing the defederating, but the data is still public. Not to mention copies of it would still be fully available on any extant federated instances.
But they would still be unable to embrace (and, by extension, extend and extinguish) because users from Threads would be unable to interact with users from other instances. Basically, they’d be unable to get rid of a potential competitor using the EEE method.
But how could interoperability lead to extinguishing? That’s the part I don’t understand. By what means could Threads “extinguish” the network of instances that stay federated?
It seems the idea is that it gets so big that it either can’t exist without it or leeches the userbase. I’ve not really seen any explanation either, but I’ve come up with an idea around it. For example, in my experience Lemmy.World is filled with the type of people who would use Threads (from responses I’ve gotten about corporations like Spotify and Apple - heavily praised and no negativity about them). As threads and .world users interact, over time there becomes a dependency between those instances due to the community connections that are made. At a certain point, one or the other does something to encourage usage - that would be Extending.
For how long would something like activitypub be able to hold out? If Meta begins making contributions to it? Or if after that dependency, Meta makes a chance to how their federation works internally and fractures the point of activitypub by making instance runners/users pick one or the other. Or worse, Meta flat out buys Automatic. There goes the Fediverse.
FWIW - I’m not informed or have any idea what I’m talking about in this regard. I’m fully guessing and postulating, I don’t even think I’m parroting what I’ve read somebody else say about it because, like I said, I’ve yet to see an explanation how the extinguish would function in this example. Historically I have an idea, but the circumstances here are different, ish.
But, this is Meta we’re talking about. I don’t think we’d be any happier federating with Reddit if the opportunity arose because these companies have historically shown they will pull teeth to get what they want, no matter how many people’s teeth they have to pull.
“Well can they?”
I don’t know. Maybe not? Do you want to let them try? Why let them? By defederating, it’s like having a glass wall where yes, they can see everything looking in, but the interaction is mitigated. Ifnthe example I brought up is accurate, any changes .World decided to make with Meta in mind would not affect the rest of the instances that have defederated, since we don’t even see that stuff from them in the first place.
Comparatively, slrpnk.net currently is federated with .World but not Threads, so if .World makes changes, those may be seen from instances that are federated with it?
From my understanding, a specific post on .World that has interaction from Threads and slrpnk.net. Threads and .World would see everything while Slrpnk.Net would only see federated instances and .World comments.
We are about 1.5m here in the Fediverse. Threads is already 100m. That’s quite a large number of things to be missing, so it’s possible that there’s a large number of conversations that defederated users are only seeing half of? That could be another example that pushes Extinguish.
Anyway, sorry for any confusion or nonsense - I wrote this in a hurry on my phone, but I also wanted to lay out my thoughts and understand to see if it’s at all in the ballpark. Shit, just use me as Cunningham’s Law.
You’ve basically got it. To use the “Google XMPP” example some others have:
XMPP users existed, and its userbase was growing (similar to Lemmy). Google made Google Talk, a desktop chat application they used to have, compatible with XMPP (which was the “ActivityPub” of chat applications) (embrace).
After a bit, Google started adding their own proprietary stuff to XMPP. (It’s similar to how Apple/ Google added proprietary stuff in their respective text message applications, like reacting to a text with an emote.) The XMPP devs, for whatever reason, couldn’t or didn’t make Google’s own proprietary Google Talk features compatible with XMPP, so XMPP users might’ve started feeling left out (extend).
After a while, Google Talk got rid of its XMPP support, and, as a result, many XMPP users could no longer communicate with many of the friends they had made on the platform. (Since Google Talk users outnumbered XMPP users, there was a very high chance that people you communicated with on there were using Google Talk.) Google Talk users, on the other hand, simply noticed maybe one or two people on their list had gone offline permanently (extinguish).
Can you explain what that means in this context? How does defederating Threads prevent Meta from extinguishing anything?
It prevents that specific strategy that would culminate in extinguishing. The idea being to siphon users away from other platforms, then add features that other platforms won’t or can’t implement, and use that to create an image of their own platform being better, having more features. If they succeed at having a lot of users oblivious to what’s happening, they will use those features, and when they don’t work for people on other platforms, they will blame the other platforms instead of their own, further cultivating the image that other platforms are broken/unreliable. In the end, they leave other platforms unable to compete, forcing users to either have a “broken”/incomplete experience, or migrate to their platforms. (Or leave the fediverse entirely). Or they can simply stop federating at that point, after users have left for their platform, cutting off the rest of the fediverse from content hosted on their platform.
The way defederating prevents a strategy like that is by cutting them off before they can get a foothold - they can’t make users feel left out if they don’t get to influence their experience in the first place.
Also, if the best people are on the instances threads can’t see, their userers will feel left out.
Or what Google does right now with Chrome and web standards.
For those unaware of Google’s latest web browser malarkey: Web Environment Integrity
EFF/Cory Doctorow/Jacob Hoffman-Andrews: Your Computer Should Say What You Tell It To Say
I genuinely want Gopher back.
I want to share information and to communicate. I don’t want every bowel movement tracked and monetizes. I don’t want 30 cross site requests when going to a news site. A single story should not require 10MB of JavaScript libraries.
I have no doubt that most of the authors of the original internet are aghast at what their high-minded creation has itself created.
But how would defederating prevent any of that?
It would make Threads unable to see content from instances defederating it and vice versa, preventing the Embrace step.
That’s a common misconception actually, any and all data available via federation is already public and easily scrapable even without running an instance of one’s own. Defederating only hides (in this case) Threads content from users on the instance doing the defederating, but the data is still public. Not to mention copies of it would still be fully available on any extant federated instances.
But they would still be unable to embrace (and, by extension, extend and extinguish) because users from Threads would be unable to interact with users from other instances. Basically, they’d be unable to get rid of a potential competitor using the EEE method.
But how could interoperability lead to extinguishing? That’s the part I don’t understand. By what means could Threads “extinguish” the network of instances that stay federated?
It seems the idea is that it gets so big that it either can’t exist without it or leeches the userbase. I’ve not really seen any explanation either, but I’ve come up with an idea around it. For example, in my experience Lemmy.World is filled with the type of people who would use Threads (from responses I’ve gotten about corporations like Spotify and Apple - heavily praised and no negativity about them). As threads and .world users interact, over time there becomes a dependency between those instances due to the community connections that are made. At a certain point, one or the other does something to encourage usage - that would be Extending.
For how long would something like activitypub be able to hold out? If Meta begins making contributions to it? Or if after that dependency, Meta makes a chance to how their federation works internally and fractures the point of activitypub by making instance runners/users pick one or the other. Or worse, Meta flat out buys Automatic. There goes the Fediverse.
FWIW - I’m not informed or have any idea what I’m talking about in this regard. I’m fully guessing and postulating, I don’t even think I’m parroting what I’ve read somebody else say about it because, like I said, I’ve yet to see an explanation how the extinguish would function in this example. Historically I have an idea, but the circumstances here are different, ish.
But, this is Meta we’re talking about. I don’t think we’d be any happier federating with Reddit if the opportunity arose because these companies have historically shown they will pull teeth to get what they want, no matter how many people’s teeth they have to pull.
“Well can they?”
I don’t know. Maybe not? Do you want to let them try? Why let them? By defederating, it’s like having a glass wall where yes, they can see everything looking in, but the interaction is mitigated. Ifnthe example I brought up is accurate, any changes .World decided to make with Meta in mind would not affect the rest of the instances that have defederated, since we don’t even see that stuff from them in the first place.
Comparatively, slrpnk.net currently is federated with .World but not Threads, so if .World makes changes, those may be seen from instances that are federated with it?
From my understanding, a specific post on .World that has interaction from Threads and slrpnk.net. Threads and .World would see everything while Slrpnk.Net would only see federated instances and .World comments.
We are about 1.5m here in the Fediverse. Threads is already 100m. That’s quite a large number of things to be missing, so it’s possible that there’s a large number of conversations that defederated users are only seeing half of? That could be another example that pushes Extinguish.
Anyway, sorry for any confusion or nonsense - I wrote this in a hurry on my phone, but I also wanted to lay out my thoughts and understand to see if it’s at all in the ballpark. Shit, just use me as Cunningham’s Law.
You’ve basically got it. To use the “Google XMPP” example some others have:
XMPP users existed, and its userbase was growing (similar to Lemmy). Google made Google Talk, a desktop chat application they used to have, compatible with XMPP (which was the “ActivityPub” of chat applications) (embrace).
After a bit, Google started adding their own proprietary stuff to XMPP. (It’s similar to how Apple/ Google added proprietary stuff in their respective text message applications, like reacting to a text with an emote.) The XMPP devs, for whatever reason, couldn’t or didn’t make Google’s own proprietary Google Talk features compatible with XMPP, so XMPP users might’ve started feeling left out (extend).
After a while, Google Talk got rid of its XMPP support, and, as a result, many XMPP users could no longer communicate with many of the friends they had made on the platform. (Since Google Talk users outnumbered XMPP users, there was a very high chance that people you communicated with on there were using Google Talk.) Google Talk users, on the other hand, simply noticed maybe one or two people on their list had gone offline permanently (extinguish).
The same way we prevented any of that up ’till now: by doing our own thing on our own terms.