With a corporate takeover and corporate "values" they shed like fleas, the #EEE will come in form of #Fediverse losing original intent and meaning.
No longer a place of refuge where people build things to the delight of others and in natural interaction foster cultures where humanity can be freely expressed.
Fediverse will be a category name, just like Web and Internet. A place of marketeers and commerce.
And yes, somewhere there.. #fedi still around. That neat hidden place, only to be found!
If this "privacy setting" for #quoteposts is implemented with it enabled by default, the result will be disastrous. :reisensweat: Since there is no other way to enforce this setting other than #defederation, we are going to see Mastodon servers strong-arming those software developers who are "non-compliant" by threatening a #fediblock. :reisensweat: Developers of the -key and -oma families will suddenly have to scramble to make their implementation of #quotetweets compatible with Mastodon's "privacy-friendly" implementation. :satsuki_sadge: This way of "extending" the fediverse is not acceptable, and everyone who has opposed #Facebook joining the fediverse due to #EmbraceExtendExtinguish should also oppose this issue which just eventually leads to the same result.
So according to Eugen, he's been using XMPP during a time when people let their desktop PCs run all the time, which is ideal for XMPP's requirement to maintain an active connection from sender to recipient in order to actually deliver messages.
But when the world transitioned from desktop PCs to mobile phones, XMPP's requirement to stay always on was just not practical, and the world moved on from XMPP and onto other platforms.
The only way people used XMPP was through Facebook and Google Talk, but the mainstream really didn't have a strong appreciation for XMPP.
According to Eugen, Email is still going strong because everyone knows how to work with it
Effectively, embracing, extending, extinguishing is just not a thing for email yet.
L’urlo di Threads fa cagare addosso il Fediverso? EEE… basta
«Noi siamo #Threads, l'esistenza come voi la conoscete è terminata, assimileremo le vostre peculiarità biologiche e tecnologiche alle nostre. La resistenza è inutile.»
In quali modi il Fediverso può reagire all'irruzione di Threads?
Lo scossone per il #Fediverso sarà enorme: guardando alla sproporzione di risorse tra #Meta e l’universo federato, sembra chiaro che tutto ciò porterà a una distruzione del Fediverso per come lo conoscevamo.
There is no such thing as "#lawful#access". Encryption is #math. There is no math that the "good guys" can do but which cannot be done by the "bad guys".
Anyone who suggests different is #lying, to #spy on you.
The former takes people from other domains and makes their posts green text on green background. The colors are manually set and not reflective of any magazine styles or the like, but I have no idea why rgba(20, 45, 20, 1.0) is the color someone chose. I recommend anyone who wants that script edit line#41 to something like GM_addStyle('[data-is-federated-content="true"] { background-color: #EEE; }');, but even then this is a bit annoying to have to do manually.
I and others have talked a lot about the #Facebook / #Meta#FediVerse issue over the past few days, analyzing their strategy, and possible responses, and why pre-emptive blocking isn't an effective measure.
This leaves the question of "what should we do?" So....
ITT: actually effective measures for building the resilience of the FediVerse and #ActivityPub, informed by the experience of the #OSS movement.
@emc2@smallpatatas Thank you for saying this. One of the biggest issues I have with these talks in particular #eee is that people are not being open and honest about Facebook currently abilities. Nor are they saying the hard part out loud. This requires adoption. As you’ve stated Meta can’t force any implementations on instances. For the threat level that’s widely pushed here it requires adoption and compliance. Meta can’t force anyone. That’s the discussion that is not happening & it’s doing a disservice
Some people accuse me of putting "embrace, extend, and extinguish" (#EEE) to a standard that is unfalsifiable.
First off, it doesn't matter whether or not EEE is unfalsifiable -- this was still a monopolistic strategy that Microsoft tried to employ to kill competition.
But as it happens, EEE actually did work on a few occasions. Most prominently with OS/2 Warp.
What many people don't realize is that IBM didn't merely make OS/2. It was a collaboration with Microsoft.
But Microsoft stabbed IBM in the back and made a competitive product called Windows. Perhaps you might have heard of it.
Much of Windows was based off OS/2. Windows even had a similar UI to OS/2.
Every part of EEE happened to OS/2. Microsoft embraced it. They extended it. And OS/2 was extinguished in 2001.
Why was this possible? I suspect a big reason is that OS/2 was proprietary, not open source.
It's funny, whenever spreaders of "embrace extend extinguish" (#EEE) FUD come into my inbox, I tell them that the "extinguish" part of EEE has never worked against open source.
And they almost always reply, "Oh, we don't actually mean 'extinguish'. We mean something else."
Then don't use the word "extinguish" -- because extinguish means extinguish.
If you don't mean "extinguish", then you're clearly moving goal posts. Or worse, you're re-defining a word ("I don't really mean extinguish") to imply something happened when it actually didn't. Don't use the word "extinguish" if that's not what you actually mean.
You're not helping open source by spreading false EEE narratives. You're hurting it.
Actually, Internet Explorer 6 was once 97% of the browser market. That’s right, 97%—they had the browser market locked down!
If ever there was a situation where “embrace, extend, extinguish” (EEE) should have worked, it was with the open web.
Yet Microsoft failed. Why is that?
First, while Microsoft initially was installed by default on every Mac, they had neglected the Mac version of Internet Explorer. So Apple took action and made their own browser—Safari. They shipped this in 2003.
But also, Microsoft refused to build a version of Internet Explorer for Linux. This forced Linux advocates to build their own web browser engines, most prominently KHTML. Apple forked KHTML into WebKit, which was then used as Safari’s browser engine.
Thereafter Netscape rose from the ashes as Mozilla, released Firefox. And Firefox not only caused tabs to go mainstream, but also extensions too.
And where was Microsoft while all this was happening? Resting on their laurels, content with the belief that EEE would work. They never improved IE6. As all the other browsers came out, IE6 looked more and more worse.
But still, they had the corporations using it, so there was no fire in Microsoft to improve IE6.
The final nail in the coffin was Chrome. Corporations were willing to make the leap to Chrome because Google built backwards compatibility for IE6 with Chrome.
Microsoft tried to recover with subsequent versions of Internet Explorer. But they eventually discontinued it and released a new browser called Edge.
Nevertheless, Microsoft never achieved browser dominance again even with installing edge as the default browser on Windows.
Microsoft failed to #EEE the open web. It wasn’t the open web that was extinguished. It was Internet Explorer.
People actually think “embrace, extend, and extinguish” (#EEE) was a fun slogan created by open source advocates, and was never meant to be taken literally.
That’s not the case.
Microsoft made that phrase up, not open source advocates. And they meant it literally, not figuratively. When they said “extinguish”, this wasn’t an exaggeration. They really did mean it.
I feel like I’ve thoroughly debunked the “Google killed Usenet” narrative.
The problem with these “embrace, extend, extinguish” (EEE) narratives is that, facts be damned, the myth is too compelling.
Never mind that #EEE has never worked against open source. Never mind that open source projects like Linux, Git, and the Web itself continue to thrive. Never mind that the entire world is populated by open projects that killed their proprietary equivalents—rather than vice versa.
If a story sounds good, people won’t just believe it, they’ll double down even when you show them facts.
The problem is that it’s the supposed “fans” of open source—in this case, the #Fediverse—that believe in the EEE narrative the most. They’re the architects of their own fear, uncertainty, and doubt. They’re the ones trumpeting doom and gloom, telling all newcomers that they should cower in fear. Again, facts be damned, the narrative of EEE is too compelling for them.
Microsoft, Google, and Meta don’t have to say anything to make people scared for the future of the Fediverse. Fans of the Fediverse do that for them.
Everyone should read this (and Eugen, Byron, and Stux should be tied to chairs and have it read to them 24/7): How to Kill a Decentralised Network, about how Google killed XMPP and why Facebook looking into ActivityPub compatibility is bad news for everyone.
Can those of you that are tenured here in the #Fediverse tell me where this alarmist #EEE views have come from? Either this people are grossly misinformed/uninformed or they are disingenuous and that would bother me more. Like how if you believe in the #fediverse do you believe some corp can come and take it all over?
Why do posts that aren’t from kbin show “kbin.social” next to the title?
Welcome!
Welcome to the my little pony magazine!...