“then it doesn’t deserve to exist”

When I hear that, I hear an implicit value judgement with Meta as the standard. The value of an instance is in if it can survive against a social aggregation to Meta’s instance. Only then is it worthy of existing, if it can compete with the degree of funding, advertising, and account creation streamlining that we would expect from a social media platform giant.

When I hear that, I hear that small, self-hosted instances don’t deserve to exist.

That sounds like a very naive view on part of that developer. He probably never heard of Microsoft’s „Embrace, extend, and extinguish“ approach. This is going to be similar with Facebook. They have a lot more resources than all current instances combined and can provide a much better user experience. They are going to be the main instance on the federated network slowly starting to extend it and support features others lack. Making it a unique selling point until it’s too late.

And that’s not even looking at the moral/ethical standpoint of getting involved with Meta.

The counter argument is that standardized open protocols are important. So if a big corporation moves to adopt a standardized open protocol, it’s a good thing for everyone, even if said corporation is sketchy, evil, or whatever.

It’s kind of like Microsoft’s adoption of XML for Office save files. Yes, they had ulterior motives, and the result isn’t completely satisfactory for third parties who want to parse the save data. But it’s still miles better than the previous situation where things were completely closed off.

Yep, they’ll do the old embrace, extend, extinguish playbook. First implement it, flood communities with Facebook/ig users, then implement features that only work with their client until the whole community is taken over.

I agree with your point. Metaface is the most hilariously transparently bad actor on the internet. That well is so poisoned there’s no olive branches that will save their reputation. The incentives for these companies are clear and produce a consistent pattern: build something useful and start building walls around it so you can exploit whatever you’ve built to produce the most shareholder returns. Any instance that cooperates with a Bookmeta instance is willfully ignorant how it will end, even if MaceTook truly does not have malicious plans at the start.

But beyond the other responses, I think it’s worth thinking deeper on this. It’s easy to reduce it to “It’s simple. We kill the Zuckerberg.”

There have always been bad actors, and will always be bad actors. There are probably bad actors in the room with us right now. If this whole threadiverse experiment is going to survive, it needs to be able robustly handle them even when the bad actors can bring a lot of resources to bear.

Also the real fun happens when TheMeta.Com starts proposing changes to ActivityPub. Even if the changes are purely technical and make perfect sense there’s going to be slapfights.