[deleted]
Comment on Tear Down Walls, and Build Bridges
cosmic_slate@dmv.social 8 months agoAnything remotely useful to connect to other people gets shouted down rather quickly and irrationally.
Look at the foam-mouthed Threads opponents.
I get the feeling the vocal people don’t actually want ActivityPub-based social media to be adopted by anyone, or desperately need a hobby outside of complaint generation.
SineNomineAnonymous@lemmy.ml 8 months ago
rglullis@communick.news 8 months ago
The whole idea in the first place was to NOT be corporate
The idea is that the network should not be owned and controlled by a corporation, not that no corporation should ever participate in it.
Besides, how “corporate” is a startup with a few dozen developers working on a fully open source project?
wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 8 months ago
Honestly I see the fediverse as a massive opportunity for corporations.
If you’re Google, why not host a Google corporate instance where everything is authenticated as your own content, under your own URL, but you can still reshare outside content? You’ll never have the issues of unwanted or controversial content appearing with your brand. There’s no chance of a parody account pretending to be your customer service, and you won’t have to pay a protection fee for an authentic checkmark.
This is 10x more important for governments to do, as right now I can’t view official political discourse from my own government without giving my data to a private company.
SineNomineAnonymous@lemmy.ml 8 months ago
[deleted]rglullis@communick.news 8 months ago
We’re talking about Meta
No, we talking about Bluesky.
Dorsey’s baby
He’s moved on to Nostr. Also, Bluesky is open source and their work can be forked by anyone. You might disagree about whether it makes sense to work on another different protocol instead of trying to improve the ActivityPub ecosystem, but let’s please not get into mud-slinging and this stupid tribal mentality.
0x1C3B00DA@kbin.social 8 months ago
a lot of people want nothing to do with it.
And nobody is disagreeing with their right to do that. They have the tools to curate their own experience. But they can't demand the fediverse work they way they want it to and no other way.
sudneo@lemmy.world 8 months ago
While I disagree with some of the positions in this specific instance. They do have their right to express their opinion on the nature and direction of the fediverse. Reducing everything to the individual experience is focusing on technical features but not on the collective and social aspects.
There are also tons of people who can’t really help but using the same corporate metrics: growth, reach, users count, adoption. Not everyone agrees on these as objectives to pursue, and it makes sense to be vocal about the general direction from that perspective (because it goes way beyond my personal narrow experience).
That said, I can’t stand those who use excuses like “privacy” or “there are bad actors”, as their main motivations, because these are also largely individual problems. On the other hand, opposing to keep separated a corporate, for profit, social media from the fediverse is a whole different matter.
0x1C3B00DA@kbin.social 8 months ago
the nature and direction of the fediverse
The fediverse is a decentralized network. It doesn't have a cohesive nature/direction. It's made up of servers providing twitter-like experiences, servers providing reddit-like experiences, forums, personal websites, video platforms, etc. You'll never know all the places your fediverse data has reached because the fediverse doesn't have hard boundaries so you can't possible measure it all.
Which is why I think complaining about other what other software does is pointless. Instead, users should be pushing their own software to adopt more features to allow them to control their experience and data.
cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 months ago
They do have their right to express their opinion on the nature and direction of the fediverse.
on the other hand, they don’t have to right to spam an independent creators github repository with threats.
Adanisi@lemmy.zip 8 months ago
“Foam mouthed Threads opponents”
Threads is quite blatantly just going to throw it’s weight around. It’s not in good faith. They’re already not going to properly implement ActivityPub (which they apparently would do, according to pro-Threads federation people), and so certain content will appear different on Threads and AP.
Smaller services and services which aren’t megacorps are fine. Honestly, BlueSky federation seems like a good thing to me. But we’ll have to see about that.
dameoutlaw@lemmy.ml 8 months ago
Mastodon and many others do not “properly” implement ActivityPub and have a ton of their own extensions and implementations
Adanisi@lemmy.zip 8 months ago
But do they ignore existing implementations of a feature when they want to add that feature? And make it crappier when federated?
wisdomchicken@piefed.social 8 months ago
Threads has implemented both ActivityPub implementations of quote posting: it uses the Misskey quote posting system, and also implemented fep-e232 (which is a better version of quote posting, but not implemented by any major platform), so that they are already immediately compatible with platforms that use the FEP version.
Mastodon ignores the current implementations of quote posting, and wants to do their own new implementation so that they can add granular control.
ginerel@kbin.social 8 months ago
I kinda get all the Threads worries and the fact that some people might not be comfortable with Meta collecting their data for advertising. But this is just insane. It just makes me think people are just irrationally angry at everything, and they like being that, instead of informing themselves about what everything does.
Carighan@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Yeah it’s all “We hate walled gardens” and then a minute late “DO NOT TOUCH MY GARDEN WALLS!!!1!!”.