XMPP still works great btw. It was hard to convince everyone to get an address, but now 95% of my messages are over XMPP. To me compatibility with internet standards is a hard requirement.
No. There was nothing to extend and extinguish with XMPP. It was a dead on arrival protocol that nobody ever used seriously. I’ve been to the internet at that time and what people actually used was: AIM, ICQ, MSN and possibly even Yahoo!. (IRC for the nerds and Counter-Strike)
It was exactly the other way around. Nobody ever used XMPP, then Google opened federation on their first chat and suddenly someone was actually reachable via XMPP which was a cool thing for some nerds that were into XML then, but when Google noticed that it only imports problems with nothing to gain from the XMPP network they just shut it off.
At the time nobody cared because the people accidentally using XMPP didn’t give a shit about it because they used Google not XMPP in the first place.
Some governments I think and the BBC are already using mastodon, and honestly, those big organisations used things like tweetdeck before instead of mainstream twitter apps. I can feasibly see big organisations like governments, politicians and media sites not wanting to use threads, and instead using their own instances to interact with threads users.
Nothing good will come of federating with meta, the fediverse should simply stay out of their reach and realize whatever potential it may have.
I think there might be another way to hurt it though that this article doesn’t seem to mention. Funnily enough, it’s also a theme of an asterix and obelix comic book, which the introduction referenced. This way would be monetization. Threads might try to “help” the fediverse by feeding the bigger instances money, therefore the hosts of the instances would be more open to negotiations with meta and accepting of their policies.
I will compare this to YouTube which started paying all it’s big creators until they became dependent on the platform for a living and then started slowly implementing more and more rules that limit their freedom of expression. Remember how much PewDiePie used to swear in his getting over it videos? In another “pew news” or whatever it was called video I happened to watch he directly mentioned that he censors himself because he isn’t going to put his job on the line just to say “fuck”. Profit invites creators to comply with YouTube’s regulations even if they aren’t enforced violently always.
The same pattern was used in the asterix comic I mention above. Ceasar decides to open a building complex almost next to the problematic for him village and so the residents flood the markets and are shocked at the low prices compared to Rome. As a result, the villagers start increasing prices and advertising their goods and services, neglecting their previous morals and ethos. In the end, however, the Romans lose again after (panoramix, I think?) makes them realize how much separation this has caused them, living only for their business. As a result they kick the Romans out of their village, once again united, and Caesar’s plans fail.
I think both these stories could serve as a potential warning to anyone who might consider selling themselves out if meta adopts such a policy.
If something killed XMPP for me - it was Matrix. On open source replacement that is not only more popular, but has more active development and it’s easier to use. No big company required. And since XMPP is still alive for its niche user base and EU is probably the reason for Threads federation - I don’t think this is the right hill to die on.
Meta does not give a shit to absorb the fedi. We are like a thousandth of their size, just a blip on their radar. I have no idea where people get this idea of self importance that Meta cares about their 10 user server.
If they didn’t why would they develop tools to federate? It’s obvious that the threads project was sped up significantly following musk’s obliteration of Twitter, so they wouldn’t go out of their way to implement such a feature if they didn’t have a very specific reason for it.
A company’s goal is maximization of profit, so don’t assume they intend anything else. The activitypub userbase is too small to be a significant addition to their userbase but in this way they can destroy it before it escapes their control. They don’t take risks. Mastodon could seriously compete with threads and it’s gaining popularity. If one more big boom happens it might be too late to stop the fediverse from competing with meta in the most cost efficient way possible. Do not be lured in by the false sense of security, meta wants us to help maximize their profit. We aren’t doing that right now so Meta wants to stop us (or limit us, whatever they deem more profitable)
It is as you say, but look at the difference. Allowing metaverse to grow is only going to hurt them, while the potential profits from the metaverse could be massive. They deemed it a risk worth taking because of the potential success. Meta won’t leave the fate of lemmy up to chance, because they decided we are not very likely to disappear in time.
The metaverse (that game) was released before it was done in any way for the marketing hype, but they are still working on the VR headsets. Once those are ready for mass adoption, the metaverse will have a comeback, and a hard one. People love sucking on marketing titties, and that won’t be any different.
Meta’s involvement is to “poison pill” fediverse if it really starts to take off. Or just outright buy the bigger/best parts and leave the rest wither…
The year is 2023. The whole Internet is under the control of the GAFAM empire. All of it? Well, not entirely. Because a few small villages are resisting the oppression.
Is there anyway to implement (without spinning up your own private instance) the ability for individual users to opt out of federation of their content to certain instances, or would that introduce too much overhead and complication?
This is a commonly requested feature, and is likely to appear in a future version of Lemmy. In the interim, several of the mobile apps have this feature.
Why would anyone want millions of users to come here? Everything that becomes popular or has potential to make a lot of money is always ruined eventually.
Freedom is the goal with the fediverse, so I’d prefer it stays niche than become like reddit. I used reddit and now sadly Instagram too and the users can’t be compared to Lemmy. Instagram is obscenely toxic, I will never doomscroll there again it was worse than reddit, which was also still pretty bad.
However what I really can’t stand is the slow restrictions, the watering down of content to the point where it’s insufferably bland. I came here to escape that. Post whatever the hell I want to post and browse whatever the hell other people felt like posting. The sincerity of everything is what makes the fediverse special for me.
fwiw, XMPP/Slack/Discord/etc basically solve the same problem that IRC already solved. Software Engineers just reinvent the wheel again and again as everyone loves a green field.
That said, Meta cannot be trusted. They’re going to do a year or two of embrace and extend, pretending to be good citizens. Then they will invent some crisis that causes them to want to de-federate, likely that content on other servers is not moderated to their standards or that convoluted features of their extended protocol are not being met. This take seems pretty spot on to me.
Sure, but all of those things could have been done by extending the existing protocol.
Also, fwiw, it has had media sends, presence and support for encryption for a very long time. The rest could be added. All of those things could have very well been an IRC client with a couple of extra features and a server upgrade to queue messages.
Software Engineers just reinvent the wheel again and again as everyone loves a green field.
While somewhat true, this is also a dumb take. Not everyone working at Slack/Discord/etc can work on IRC. They’re making competing businesses, not just wanting to re-solve the same problem but wanting to do it with a new code base.
You’re the one being an ass about it, saying developers always want a greenfield project. Tons of people contribute where they can, but we still need a job. So if somebody wants to make a business making a new chat client so they can make enough money to feed their family, well, that’s the capitalistic hellhole we’ve found ourselves in.
And those developers get told what to do. The wheel also gets reinvented by PMs and entrepreneurs who think they can do it better. Sounds like someone is salty about their software maintenance job.
Then they will invent some crisis that causes them to want to de-federate
Easy to predict.
Zucc-bot saw titties on Lemmy, something something think about the children outrage. "Better follow our advertisers happy friendship rules or we defederate and all your users will miss there normie friends. Not our rules, bro."
I mean, that would be the initial fear, but I’m not sure how that would matter. Threads can defederate from Lemmy.nsfw but lemmy.world can still federate both.
I don't see this as a genuine, good faith move from Meta. We're potential future competition to them. They can't buy us so I think there going to try to shit up the pace over years and hope we come groveling back. It's a make or break moment for the protocol against a titan.
Well, if metha decides to interop, activity pub can launch some propaganda to make users “just switch”, I guess. I mean it’s somewhat different from the situation with xmpp and google as most sane ppl already know fb’s crap isn’t good for your data… So maybe smth like “remember that cool shiny thingy people were leaving xitter for? Guess what, now you can talk there with your grandma without subjecting yourself to fb’s shady practices” could work given interop works good enough.
P.S. that specification under a EULA actually sounds like a good idea if you put it a bit differently: whatever implements this specification should be published under one of $insert_a_set_of_licenses. Then whatever proprietary garbage creator that decides to join will be forced to do this via bridges, and others can tell them to fix their crap 😁
most sane ppl already know fb’s crap isn’t good for your data
Bold of you to assume they care enough to do something about it. It took half a second for more than half of my friends to jump onto threads when it launched. None of them ever considered the fediverse before that. People just flock to whatever the big companies do.
Sure, but, on the other hand, when crapple rolled out their “are you OK with zuck watching you sleep” switches, ppl suddenly declined that generous offer… So I’m inclined to think they kinda care, but convenience is more valued.
Well, okay then, depending on how that interop is implemented, it may be possible to make some kind of one click-ish data importing, idk. Not messages, but at least friends, communities and similar stuff. Just speculating, tho
This time I don’t think it is an extenguish scenario. I think this is more of a preventative move to one-up the EU on interoperability. They want to be able to say “look how good we are, we already were interoperable for x time!”. But of course this could also not be the case and they might just want to kill the network, but I even find that unlikely. Xmpp isn’t dead in fact I use it every day as my phone number for texts and calls and I quite like it. Super robust, I basically never saw any federation weirdness like you could see on mastodon or Lemmy. So in my eyes xmpp didn’t get killed, they got beat by someone who had ressources and made a better product. And it’s not that I don’t think meta can make a great product that users like, but I kind of think that, especially when the competition exists (xwixxer) compared to basically none for Facebook and Instagram
Super robust, I basically never saw any federation weirdness like you could see on mastodon or Lemmy.
Because the protocol is more or less a finished product.
And of course, there is also the fact that ActivityPub is not meant to be used as 1 on 1 talk protocol. When you have to sync with posts on other servers, that does take a toll.
BlueSky and Threads are looking at interoperable protocols because they a) have engineers at home that think it's cool, and b) see the writing on the wall about upcoming regulation and want to preempt it. This is probably good for other networks already based on interoperability, but there are definitely a ton of open questions.
The article is 100% revisionist history written backwards to justify a knee-jerk conclusion and XMPP is indeed not dead. Or not any deader than anybody else that got washed away by WhatsApp winning the messaging wars over the 2010s.
EDIT: Re-reading my own post, it's too harsh. The article isn't "100%" revisionist history, so much as a biased insider account. The revisionist history is largely coming from both the misattribution of what happened to a deliberate move from Google and the fact that it's being misread and misquoted when people react to it.
The article is 100% revisionist history written backwards to justify a knee-jerk conclusion and XMPP is indeed not dead. Or not any deader than anybody else that got washed away by WhatsApp winning the messaging wars over the 2010s.
Importantly, the article fails to establish how the current XMPP usage numbers show it’s “dead” compared to back in the Google Talk days. Especially in the context of the entirely changed langscape of text messaging. So the very premise is weak from the get-go.
Yeah, it does acknowledge that it still exists and has a solid community at the very bottom.
I do excuse it, it's an article from an insider with an axe to grind that is bummed out that the Google integration didn't make them win the IM wars and that Google was bad at supporting a secondary app, as they do. That's legit.
But as a breakdown for a mallicious plan from Meta to "EEE" ActivityPub... well, it's not even pretending to be that.
I think this is more of a preventative move to one-up the EU on interoperability
And it’s not even difficult to figure out.
As if Meta has any interest in actually being federated. This is like Google paying Mozilla to keep Firefox alive. As long as it’s not “serious competition”, it’s useful. You can point to it as a “Look! Free market! No monopoly here! We’re not stifling competition, we are actively funding it!!!”. And Meta gets to promote how they’re actively engaged in interoperability, supporting federation and all that.
I think it’s even slightly different in that Firefox has some dependence on Google (a scary level, actual, if Google ends that deal Mozilla is pretty much fucked) that the fediverse doesn’t - the people on the fediverse right now are enough to keep Fedi alive and moving, and I’d find it really, really hard to argue that they aren’t there deliberately to avoid being subject to the whims of Meta/Twitter/Reddit, etc. Like, in a lot of ways, it’s a sacrifice to be on these services because the bulk of content still exists in the proprietary silos. Because the actual protocols and main developers are also intrinsically motivated by the this separation, it’s hard to picture how they could even try to extend/extinguish here.
Like, if Threads fully federates, I’d guess that quite a lot of people block their instance just to keep their hands clean. Those that interact with Threads via Fedi probably fall into the boat that I would. I want some particular content or to follow some people, just not shoveled at me however Meta decides it should be, and not in a way that they can profit from showing me ads. If Meta pulls some bullshit, it’s likely the Fedi would more or less just block them entirely then give up and start a Threads account. And I have a hard time seeing a world where they go to Eugen or basically any of the other driving forces in the Fedi and are like “we need you to change Mastodon so we can [do some typical Facebook bullshit” and Eugen are like “yeah cool with me.”
I think its more likely that Threads users are eventually going to see fedi users dropping a long comment or some post that is about how it’s nice to have a clean ad-free feed and move clients if not over to the fedi in general. It won’t be enough to really matter for Meta other than to say “see we don’t have a monopoly!” and hey, if the fedi gets a little bigger it’s all good for the rest of us.
Man, I'm not gonna relitigate this but no, Google Talk didn't kill XMPP. XMPP is not, in fact, dead. WhatsApp killed Google Talk and pretty much every other competitor and XMPP would have been in that boat with or without Google Talk.
This is gonna keep coming up, it's gonna keep being wrong and I'm really not gonna bother picking this fight each and every single time.
Well, people like to think that the fediverse is a genuine threat to Meta. And they like to feel they’re doing important work defending it from Meta. So this will indeed pop up again, and again, and again.
They do? I mean, a few times I did have to point out that Meta has multiple products breaking 2 billion active users, so the "fediverse" is a drop in the ocean, but not many people seem to stick with that argument after a quick bout of googling.
I mean I think it will be if they really to end up federating. Why sign up for an ad-ridden data-hoarding service when you can use services that don’t have that nonsense but still allows you to do all the things you want to do on social media?
I don’t know what their endgame is. Maybe you have some better perspective than me?
Do you REALLY think they’re dedicating company resources to squash an entire network that comprises like .001% of market share?
I think most likely the “endgame” is to avoid legal regulation. Something they can point to and say that they have valid competition, and that they’re actively supporting that competition. Which is great.
Oh, I read it when it came out back in June. Many times, as it kept being shared as an explanation of the first Threads backlash.
It's full of incorrect assessments and false equivalences.
Threads doesn't really have the volume (yet) to subsume ActivityPub. The process it describes for standards drifting towards the corporate actor doesn't apply to ActivityPub, which is engineered from the ground up to support multiple apps with differnent functionality (hence me writing this in Kbin and others reading it in Lemmy and being able to link it and follow it from Mastodon), the article only acknowledges that XMPP survived and kept on going at the very end as a throwaway and doesn't justify how it "never recovered" and, like I said, it doesn't acknowledge the real reasons Talk and every Google successor to Talk struggled and collapsed.
So yes, I read it. Past the headline and everything. I just didn't take it at face value. This piece keeps getting shared because XMPP wasn't ever that big to begin with, so this sounds erudite and informed while the similar arguments being made at the time about SMTP and RSS were more obviously identifiable as being wrong for the same reasons.
which is engineered from the ground up to support multiple apps with differnent functionality (hence me writing this in Kbin and others reading it in Lemmy and being able to link it and follow it from Mastodon)
I mean that’s basically what every protocol is. ActivityPub abstracts concepts, that apps implement in their own way (for example the concept of group). If you manage to deliver changes, even improvements, to the protocol, apps need to keep up and comply with it. This is what means “drifting towards the corporate actor”. I propose changes to the protocol to a rate that only me (the corporate actor) can keep up with. This way only my users will have certain features and eventually some apps will become incompatible with the recent version(s) of the protocol.
It's also not what happened to XMPP and, interestingly, not what the article claims happened to XMPP, even. You'll note in the postmortem about it the recollection is that Google was too slow to adopt features and fix bugs, not the other way around.
I guess once you get enough confirmation bias in play you can embrace, expand and extinguish both by doing that and the opposite of that.
It absolutely matters under ActivityPub because, as I said earlier, it comes down to the client to manage the incoming packets. If Meta is out of date with the protocol but the rest of the federation is not (and retains backwards compatibility at all), then everybody else gets nicely formatted but feature-limited Meta content and they get garbled stuff.
It's only relevant if we get garbled stuff and they get nicely formatted content. Which should be entirely avoidable if they "pull down".
So no, not the same. And crucially people are still misquoting the article and the article is still misrepresenting the so-called "EEE" strategy.
The difference here is that, one, people are more aware now than they were back then (privacy wasn’t as big an issue then as it is now, thus people are more aware and are on the Fediverse for a reason), two, now the Fediverse has the upper hand (because of Mastodon mostly… they are somewhat of a player in the social media market), three, devs won’t allign with Meta’s moral compass just because it’s Meta (like it was with Google back then… people actually believed that company’s slogan back then).
So, what might have worked back then, probably won’t now, but it’s still good to approach Meta with caution.
Huh. I was just saying up here that I don't think anybody genuinely believes the fediverse is a Meta competitor, but... guess I was wrong.
Mastodon does not have the upper hand by any metric. Threads alone has an order of magnitude more active users than the entire fediverse and Meta has multiple platforms with billions of users (and have signaled that they want Threads to reach that size).
You can absolutely argue that ActivityPub is a tech trendsetter and has an edge over BlueSky in that it's already up and running. You can't seriously argue that Mastodon or the fediverse are a threat, a competitor or have an advantage over Threads or Meta. One of the biggest hints that Meta isn't going for "EEE" here is that it's probably not worth the effort.
Huh. I was just saying up here that I don’t think anybody genuinely believes the fediverse is a Meta competitor, but… guess I was wrong.
Not a competitor, that’s the corps view on things (the fediverse taking a piece of it’s cake, us not looking at ads and not playing stupid games on their platforms).
Mastodon does not have the upper hand by any metric. Threads alone has an order of magnitude more active users than the entire fediverse and Meta has multiple platforms with billions of users (and have signaled that they want Threads to reach that size).
It still shows up in metrics and market share (not on every chart/pie, but still). What I meant was that it can be taken as a serious player by some. I don’t think it really is, but some people do.
And by having the upper hand, I meant as in being more advanced and in it’s adolescent stage, not in it’s infancy (which wasn’t the case with XMPP… maybe it wasn’t in it’s infancy, but it barely reached puberty). My point was that people on Mastodon, devs and admins, know exactly what they like and you can’t really push them around or try and lour them into some scheme, like flushing down millions into Mastodon development (which will put them in their pocket). We’ve seen this tactic with other companies (Mozilla as the most prominent example) and we know exactly where it leads. This wasn’t the case back then, people generally trusted IT companies, they really thought most of them cared about the users. Sure, make a few bucks here and there, but in general, just take care of the users and business as a second thing. Of course, we learned later on that that was never the plan, at all, but it was too late by then.
You can absolutely argue that ActivityPub is a tech trendsetter and has an edge over BlueSky in that it’s already up and running. You can’t seriously argue that Mastodon or the fediverse are a threat, a competitor or have an advantage over Threads or Meta. One of the biggest hints that Meta isn’t going for “EEE” here is that it’s probably not worth the effort.
They do the integration for a reason… what that reason might be, I have no idea… might be malicious, might not be. In any case, even if they truly have the best intents for their users (which I seriously doubt) and the Fediverse (which I also seriously doubt), that doesn’t mean that the product of those good willed intentions can’t be taken to another level, i.e. used to do bad things. Remember, the dynamite wasn’t invented to be used in bombs.
I swear, I'm so tired of naive takes about "good" and "bad" corporations.
Corporations are corporations. They are groups of people legally mandated to make money for their shareholders. They're not individuals.
So yeah, I'm fairly confident that them taking steps towards joining ActivityPub is some mix of high ranking people thnking interoperability is cool, some other high ranking people thinking that may smooth over what seems like an immediate future full of legal challenges, particularly in Europe and some other people thinking that as long as all the newcomers to the Twitter corpse party are interoperable they can flex their superior resources and development.
Because that's how groups of people behave.
But I'm also very confident that nobody looked at the rounding error that is the fediverse userbase, disproportionally made up of FOSS true believers and fringe infosec nerds and went "we need to plot their demise". That's not a thing that groups of people concerned with building userbases in the billions talk about.
There are no good corporations… well, not any more. Some of them actually used to care about making good products. Now, no, none of them care about that.
Corporations are corporations. They are groups of people legally mandated to make money for their shareholders. They’re not individuals.
Exactly.
But I’m also very confident that nobody looked at the rounding error that is the fediverse userbase, disproportionally made up of FOSS true believers and fringe infosec nerds and went “we need to plot their demise”. That’s not a thing that groups of people concerned with building userbases in the billions talk about.
Not saying that that is the true nature of the plan, but that there are numerous aspects (as you noted) by which this can be seen as a good thing by Meta (as in, it gives a peek into their playground) to do… whatever… good or bad, doesn’t matter.
It is not. Discord’s protocol has been tailormade to suit Discord and the developers will not give a single thought about keeping it stable because only the Discord server&client are meant to use it.
Yeah I kept thinking these people must be incredibly young if they think this is what happened. As if Google Talk was anyone’s problem (in the big picture), nevermind XMPP’s.
Hah. Alright, it's not deader than it would have been had Google not stepped in and then stepped out. We're grading "dead" late 2000s instant messaging apps on a bit of a curve here.
This needs to be higher for visibility. The story of Google killing XMPP is a good one but it’s utterly bullshit. XMPP was a mess, Google didn’t kill it, it killed itself by having fucked ecosystem that didn’t do anything better than numerous proprietary standards at the time.
It’s not like XMPP was EVER dominant, nor was Google talk - even man messenger was more popular at the time and that’s also dead.
An XMPP developer would likely have been delusional about the protocol he himself developed. But at the time I can assure you XMPP was completely irrelevant. AIM/ICQ/MSN/Yahoo! and maybe IRC were the tools of the day back then.
Because of actual competition (which XMPP had absolutely no part in) multi protocol messengers had their golden age then.
Oh, absolutely not. Let me be clear, I do not question that the author was involved in the project and interacted with Google. I do not question any of the factual details in the article and my argument is not that he's lying. Total respect for him, his work at the time and even his opinions on how annoying and frustrating it was working with Google around.
What I'm saying is his perspective on the alleged failure of XMPP is specifically biased by his insider experience, that many of the examples he gives do not apply to AP, that the process he describes there is not EEE, that it's not the reason XMPP and Google Talk failed and that, as he admits throughout the piece, XMPP didn't in fact disappear or "die" after Talk's failure or because of their intervention.
To be fair, Microsoft didn’t invent this, they only showed that it could be implemented in the tech industry. To some extent, basically every big tech company does this now.
Add comment