You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
31 points

is Metastasis is allowed in the fediverse it will consume the fediverse

How?

I’ve seen the article about Google and XMPP, but I don’t agree with its analysis. It wasn’t easy to find service providers offering XMPP accounts to the public in 2004. I do not believe that Google embraced, extended, and extinguished a thriving ecosystem; there never was a thriving XMPP ecosystem.

There is a thriving ecosystem for federated microblogging, and federated discussions. While I’m sure Meta would like us to join their service, I’m not sure how allowing their users to interact with us will have that effect, nor how blocking that communication protects against it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

I was nearly 20 years younger than I am now and was definitely ignorant of free, public XMPP service providers, which is kind of the point. If someone tech-savvy enough to be running Linux on a laptop in 2004 and liked the idea of XMPP tried and failed to get started with it, what hope was there of attracting a mainstream audience? You could argue I didn’t try hard enough, and you’d be right in a tautological sense. I did later use third-party XMPP clients for Google Chat.

I don’t expect a Pony from Meta. Meta is a face-eating leopard and I expect it to try to eat my face. If blocking their users from seeing the pictures of birds I share on Mastodon prevents that, please tell me how it does. This isn’t a rhetorical question; I self-host and can block, or not block whatever I want.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

I’ve yet to see a convincing argument in favor of preemptive defederation or an explanation of what “Embrace Extend Extinguish” means in this particular scenario. There seems to be a lot of thinking that defederating “punishes” or handicaps Meta in some small way, which from my understanding is just not how it works at all.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I’m almost 50 myself. I’m logged in to XMPP right now. I’ve used it consistently since the early 2000. 20ish years minimum. There was never a thriving ecosystem of XMPP servers. There was a lot of choice, but nothing with a big name that would appeal to the average consumer. No jabber.social or jabber.world. And no critical mass of users. The transports were ultimately a frustrating gimmick. That Microsoft and AOL constantly broke. Leaving them unreliable and undesirable to recommend others to use.

When Google rolled out Google chat based on jabber/XMPP there was a lot of hopium going around that they’d be that big name to bring critical mass. Surprise! Hindsight says no. They “defederated” their servers. The jabber/XMPP development group themselves decided to persue standardization. Which largely meant an end to the active development of the service. Standards move much slower. Imperceptibly so. With Google out, the XMPP group pursuing standardization, no “official” servers, and the advent of services like Skype discord etc. The buzz and momentum behind XMPP imploded on it’s own. Stymied by no one. Suffocated by it all.

No one killed XMPP. It simply stopped being relevant to most people.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Do you have any actual statistics, or is this just a “I remember how it was back in the Golden Age” anecdote?

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Exactly. Any analysis of “embrace extend extinguish” WRT Google/XMPP needs to answer a simple question: how many daily active users did XMPP/Jabber have in 2004?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

the same can be argued about the fediverse. the approximate number is 1.5 million of monthly active users, which is just an ant compared to Meta’s.

So yeah, one could argue that it’s pretty much the same situation in terms of numbers if not worse (I don’t know the numbers but I’d bet that Meta has more users than Google talk ever had)

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

That would be quite easy given that Gmail launched in 2004 as invite-only and access has been somewhat limited well into 2007.

Geez, Fedipact people talking about XMPP prove time and time again that they’re too young to remember that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Basically every single invocation of “embrace, extend and extinguish” is a borderline fallacy that depends on an oversimplified world view.

XMPP/Jabber is even “funnier” because instant messaging as a whole is basically dead in favor of SMS and phone apps. The closest we get on that front is imessage and even that is mostly a US obsession.

Basically every “Oh mah gawdz, EEE is coming for us” article comes from a place of mass ignorance, at best.


As for Threads? I suspect that will eat Mastodon’s lunch. Because it already is. People love giving Facebook even more information and already have their favorite usernames from instagram. Whereas they will never stop bitching about how hard it is to sign up for Mastodon.

And… that is fine. Mastodon is not twitter. It is better. A lot better.

That said? I wouldn’t mind having access to Threads content. And I think there is a lot of room to use Matsodon/federation as a way for advertisers to take their power back, as it were, by controlling their own instances and being able to immediately cut off The Emerald Apartheid when he starts talking about The Jews again. But, if I ever do see a significant benefit to this, I can migrate to an instance that federates or even start my own. Rather than insisting that the ones I have accounts on do what I want.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I’d argue the phone apps are instant messaging and I’m a little surprised none of the previously-dominant PC-based IM apps made the transition successfully. Most of the ones currently popular do have web or native PC options though.

I think we’re more likely to see users move from Threads to Mastodon than the other direction. Ideally, we’ll be able to offer a more compelling pitch than just “not corporate”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

Regardless of how you classify them, nobody was ever going to figure out how to sideload a jabber client onto their flip phones or iphone 1 or blackberries.

And that is kind of the thing. Maybe Google got a larger market share of the IM market (I assume AIM was still dominant in the US and ICQ in the rest of the world) by using XMPP but better. But the market got wiped out by SMS and imessage and now is mostly shared between (depending on your country) whatsapp, line, and the imessage. … And I still use Hangouts.

Even if XMPP had been dominant on PC (which is not at all what EEE is about but…), it would not have survived as people shifted away from sitting at a computer and typing and moved toward stopping in the middle of the sidewalk and using their thumbs on a phone screen.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I think we’re more likely to see users move from Threads to Mastodon than the other direction.

I keep seeing people say things like this, but it’s just naive. Meta isn’t spending billions of dollars just to give their captive audience an offramp.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 17K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 554K

    Comments