You must log in or # to comment.
Well, that really puts things in perspective.
At Microsoft, this strategy was called “embrace, extend, extinguish”, but it’s important to realize that it isn’t a practice that’s exclusive to Microsoft.
Is Facebook/Meta attempting something similar by making Threads compatible with Mastodon?
Yes.
Once they achieve any saturation and market share, watch as they “extend” and “Improve” with proprietary things, that is where M$ was when People finally noticed and cared. The real problem with the metastization of the fediverse if there are means to extrapolate the ID here using info available via Failbook to a FB profile.
How many times is this going to get posted? We’re on the fourth or fifth repost since it was written. The last post was just 12 hours ago on this community and there’s still active discussion.
I’m sorry
Don’t worry, this is my first time seeing this post too.
I made this exact same argument using XMPP as an example and got downvoted because “XMPP is still alive”
So please correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t defederation two ways, like if my instance (lemm.ee) defederates from threads, doesn’t threads not see any lemmy posts anymore.
Assuming im not horribly wrong (and even if I am at least we won’t be able to interact with threads users) what’s the problem if we don’t see content.
And don’t get me wrong I’m 100% against threads federating and I feel like I’m missing something but what’s the problem when defederation is a tool?
If A, B, and C are federated and A defederates B and B does not defederate A, then it would look like this. A>B=C
A cannot see B, B can see A through C, and C can interact with both. Comment federation when B comments on A can be a bit spotty, from what I’ve seen.
As far as I understand, this isn’t quite right (unless it’s changed recently).
If A defeds B, then A no longer sends new posts to B, accepts comments or posts from B users, or receives new posts from B. Any comments from B users on A’s old posts (made before defederation) are no longer acknowledged by A.
I think A users can still interact with B’s posts, but then I haven’t seen any beehaw users in forever. So perhaps not?
C can obviously still interact with both A and B posts normally. On posts from C, both A and B users can still interact.
So, in short defederation creates a hard wall preventing interaction between A and B. The only way A and B users can interact is on C.
It’s unfortunate as beehaw would have benefitted from a uni-directional defederation (i.e. preventing .world users from posting on beehaw, but not preventing .beehaw users from posting on .world. Unfortunately, it’s both.)
So it is a two way wall if only one side defederates
It may have changed in the last few months, but I specifically recall seeing hexbear user comments on lemmy.ml posts well over a month after the one-sided defederation while on my sh.itjust.works account. I checked from at least 3 separate instances, lemm.ee, .world, and .works, as it was more than a little confusing for me. That’s also how I learned about spotty comment federation.
Ah that makes sense thanks
Mom said it was my turn to repost this. Downvoted.
Interesting. I really hope we can grow Lemmy while not losing its identity.
I don’t understand how Google’s shit with XMPP killed XMPP. XMPP is still a thing, and nobody was beholden to be consistent with whatever Google was doing behind closed doors with it.
