Technology
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
view the rest of the comments
What I'm saying is to let them have their own fediverse and keep them out of ours. Meta has already taken over Instagram and Whatsapp, and considered buying TikTok. Why should they have this too?
The fediverse exists as a shared commons currently; large, for-profit entities don't like shared alternatives they can't profit off as that is lost market share. From Meta's standpoint, they have to kill it or take it over and monetize it (and then kill it) as they can't maximize their profit from it otherwise. Coexistence with a competing paradigm (namely, a decenteralized, primarily non-profit social media competitor) is temporary and non of Meta's actions will go decreasing their profits except as a temporary loss leader to kill their competition (like Walmart going into a community and lowering their prices to kill their organic competition or Amazon killing bookstores). Again, Meta has already proven that they will take over competing social media and it would be foolish to think that they would not try again. If the fediverse were really not a threat to them, why would they create a product that ties into it and then ask the current fediverse operators to sign an NDA to discuss it. If the 12 million users (with 1.8 million active users, which, as a side note is a great demonstration of the pareto principal) didn't pose either a potential market or a up and coming threat to Meta, why would they bother? It's not like the fediverse could ever go viral and become a competitor like TikTok became to pre-existing social media.
To think that Meta would not use their app to bias their massive user base to their own subs that they would then monetize, manipulate, and then cut off from the fediverse when they reach a critical mass is (respectfully) naive (as demonstrated by Google and XMPP or to a lesser extent with Apple iMessage and SMS/RCS). To think that Meta wouldn't add proprietary features that are not interoperable with the existing fediverse is also naive (see, Reddit closing their source, adding a bunch of features like chat functionality but not allowing 3rd party applications to use them).
If the subs with the most engagement are Meta operated, they will either degrade the experience of non-Meta users to the point where those users will switch to the Meta service, or just defederate as it will no longer be in their financial interest to federate with something that they have already subsumed. They will treat the existing fediverse like Reddit treated Apollo and the 3rd party application ecosystem. Do you really want that?
I 100% agree with every point you made. And no, I do not want that, at all.
I still think it will play out like this though. Just because the network effect, speed of iNnoVaTIve feature development and marketing combined will favor Meta - a combination of "Why can't mlem app do X?", "All your friends are here" and banner ads on Insta. The "OG Fediverse" will still exist, maybe even grow - but federation as a new architecture for all Social Media will be off the table.