• pentobarbital@vlemmy.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s the problem though. If XMPP had grew organically then it would fare much better. With how it happened, XMPP’s growth was mostly because of Google, and that put a lot of pressure to other servers and the protocol’s development to cater to them, because they had the majority of the users in their platform.

    • Lemmino@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is absurd to think XMPP would have gained traction without Google. And it is an objectively shitty protocol, so Google dropping it was the right move. It is kind of weird to see people holding up Google dropping XMPP as some horrifying example of embrace, extend, extinguish, when anyone that’s actually developed software with the protocol wants it to die in a burning fire.

      • pentobarbital@vlemmy.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        How convoluted the protocol is doesn’t really matter as long as someone creates an easy tool to spin up your own server.

        I think the XMPP comparison stills stands: Google was able to steer how the protocol developed, or which version of the protocol people used because they had the majority of the users and other servers wanted to still be able to interact with them.

        Suppose that Facebook joins the fediverse and most large instances federate with them. All is great, then Facebook starts to make demands to other instances in order to keep federating with them, e.g. no posts about protests. Because a large share of ActivityPub activity will be on Threads, naive users would prefer instances that federate with it, so instance mods will be incentivized to comply with Facebook’s demands to attract new users and maintain their current one and… you see where this is going. The only way to deal with this is to deny Facebook this kind of leverage in the first place, either by blocking them instantly or at their first mishap or demand.

        • Lemmino@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          so instance mods will be incentivized to comply with Facebook’s demands to attract new users and maintain their current one

          This is where your argument falls apart. Why? There is no incentive for instance mods to want to grow their instances exponentially.

          If Facebook’s ActivityPub grows to be incompatible with the existing implementation, who cares? So what if you run a Mastodon instance and aren’t getting millions of new users a day?

          This is much ado about nothing. While there is a shared platform, enjoy the ride, and if they don’t want to play by your rules anymore, there’s no harm to anyone in saying goodbye and staying your course.

          • pentobarbital@vlemmy.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s true that instances don’t need to grow exponentially (or at all), but most mods/admins want to maintain their community and not see it dwindle down to nothing. People used to interacting with instances run by Facebook or other corporations (which most of their friends or family will use) might get upset if the federation link with them gets severed. If they do, they’ll either pressure the instance admin to comply with the corporations and federate with them again, or switch to the corporations’ instances. Both of these scenarios are bad for the future of the fediverse.

      • neontetra@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m not sure how things are going to go with Meta and federation and EEE could happen and definitely see some of the concerns, but the way people are just pointing to that XMPP article in every thread as some slam dunk argument I think is overstating it. It’s one example and there are lots of other considerations around it and different context that make it so it’s not something that can really be directly mapped onto this situation.

        Things may go south with Meta and federation but the constant pointing to XMPP is not really making a solid argument IMO.

        I think it’s all besides the point anyway. Some servers will federate with Meta and any other big companies that enter the Fediverse. Some wont. Meta is big enough not to care, and the big Masto servers are also going to do what they want to do and allow federation. And if there’s desire from Mastodon users to connect with Threads and follow accounts there people will move to servers that allow that. And then there may be communities that aren’t federated with Meta that are also great and strong. We’ll see how it plays out, but small Masto/Lemmy servers choosing to not Federate I don’t think will have much impact broadly speaking on how this goes. But by the same token if servers don’t want to federate with Meta that’s totally cool too and I respect that as well. We’ll have some parts of the Fediverse in the future that connect with the big platforms and some that don’t. That’s the path we’re on now either way — some will federate, some won’t — and people can choose which part they want to be part of.

        Personally I think the Fediverse and ActivityPub will be more resilient than XMPP and will be durable against EEE. Especially if other players like Tumblr and Wordpress jump in that will strengthen interoperable ActivityPub even more. If people want to not federate with Meta that’s cool and I definitely see some good points around it (but not so much the much heralded XMPP article) but I think the Fediverse will be fine either way and ActivityPub’s future is looking stronger than ever.

    • Steeve
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      deleted by creator

      • pentobarbital@vlemmy.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Talking about any alternative scenario is always speculation, but I believe the “How to kill decentralized networks” post that’s been going around lately puts it nicely:

        One thing is sure: if Google had not joined, XMPP would not be worse than it is today.

        • Steeve
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          deleted by creator

          • pentobarbital@vlemmy.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Can you explain how Google helped XMPP even in the slightest way? Because that’s what I’m arguing against.

            The only thing I can come up with is the increased popularity, which is shaky because tech-naive users wouldn’t know or care about Google Talk’s underlying protocol. Also, considering the rest of what Google did with XMPP, like making it hard for their servers to be interoperable with others, or their slow adoption of new features, it’s clear to me that Google getting involved was a net negative for XMPP. I don’t think I’m assuming anything to arrive on that conclusion.

            • Steeve
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              deleted by creator

              • pentobarbital@vlemmy.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I never argued that Google helped XMPP, I’m arguing that it isn’t applicable to the “extend, embrace, extinguish” crap that people keep parroting

                I can agree to that. Does Facebook want to join the fediverse with the sole reason to kill it? Probably not – but the fediverse stands to gain little to nothing from their involvement, so we should be as vigilant as possible with them. If the result from that is that some people end up believing that Meta’s out to EEE the fediverse then eh, whatever.