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.
@manlycoffee That doesn't make a lot of sense. Google, or anyone else really, could have implemented push notifications for their app also in the early days.
If the client and the IM service come from the same vendor, you don't even need to standardize on some protocol extension.
> maintain an active connection from sender to recipient in order
Nope, XMPP is classically not P2P. Ideally, you maintain a connection from sender to sender's server, but if it is interrupted, it works just fine when it comes back. And if you absolutely need to kill your client https://dontkillmyapp.com/ and insist on using privacy-unfriendly push notifications, there is spec for that: XEP-0357: Push Notifications. This never-ending FUD is tiring…
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.»
@giusambr si e con un angolo di visuale così ridotto che ti consentiva di capire perfettamente in base all'inclinazione del monitor chi fosse stato l'ultimo ad avere utilizzato il portatile... 🧐
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.
> aggiungo infine una mia considerazione sulla grave e irresponsabile
> sottovalutazione da parte di Rochko del problema del sovraccarico:
Col sottoprodotto, voluto o meno che sia, di mettere in seria
difficoltà le istanze meno ricche in termini di risorse
hardware/software.
Poi probabilmente qualche dipendente dell'azienda americana (con o
senza la collaborazione con qualche sviluppatore di mastodon)
comincera' a proporre modifiche al protocollo…ma che vado a pensare!
Che fantasia che ho!
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.
We need people who understand encryption in charge of writing the laws about it.
Because this alone doesn't fix the problem. The problem isn't that we can't, it's that laws spawned from America make it a big crime to fix yourself.
"Encryption is just math, can't make math illegal" is as good as argument as "guns don't kill people, bullets do". It's missing the whole point. Because yes they can make math illegal. Books too. Even people. Therein lies the real problem, it's the laws.
@cazabon That's fair - it's my understanding that with public-private key encryption, it's essentially baked in to every message because if the decryption is still garbled, someone tried to modify the encrypted message...or someone used a different encryption key.
Which comes up with backdoors - because the current state is for a proxy to effectively act as a backdoor, both parties need to know its public key...and subsequently know that the proxy exists in-between them and their target.
@aral If anyone is thinking “whaaat, where?” like I did upon reading this, it's the 22-23 paragraph/passage from the beginning in the article from the New Yorker.
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.
Another way Microsoft tried "embrace, extend, and extinguish" -- and they probably would have succeeded if not for Linux -- was by the Microsoft POSIX subsystem in Windows.
Technically, this subsystem should have allowed apps written for other operating systems to be compiled and run under Windows NT.
In practice, this was a whole-hearted attempt to embrace POSIX, extend it with proprietary Windows NT technology, and extinguish competing *nix operating systems.
I actually feel that "embrace, extend, and extinguish" (#EEE) is over-emphasized.
In actuality, Microsoft used a variety of strategies in order to further their monopoly.
One of the most well-known cases is when Microsoft funded the famous SCO vs. IBM lawsuit in an attempt to kill Linux.
Another example is how Microsoft would literally threaten OEMs if they ever offered another OS that would come pre-installed on computers. That strategy was actually the most effective -- not EEE. Numerous competitors couldn't even enter the market because Microsoft had so thoroughly scared hardware vendors.
EEE was just one tactic amongst many to maintain Microsoft's monopoly.
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.
@atomicpoet since then, regulatory law has weakened even further the USA.
Based on the Wikipedia article, EEE is successful sheerly by marginalizing the competition (see screenshot), not totally eradicating it.
And even if we went with the definition you're using, and we assume this is never happened before, I don't feel comfortable assuming a company will never do this or attempt it.
@nus Of course companies will try EEE again. No one is disputing that. Nor is anyone disagreeing that attempts at EEE are harmful.
But I don't think most attempts at EEE have ever been successful, not even at marginalization.
Internet Explorer 6 is as successful as EEE will ever be. It's the only web browser to ever achieve 97% marketshare. No other browser is likely to do that again.
But that success was temporary. Internet Explorer is dead.