No it doesn’t because you can’t extinguish a publically available standard when anybody can write their own software. XMPP is the horror story used to warn about EEE, but it still exists. The fediverse is a small network right now. If Meta tried to EEE it, server admins who don’t want to participate in a Meta-controlled network would not implement Meta’s extensions. The network would splinter into a Meta-fediverse and the actual fediverse, which would be smaller than it is now but still exist as a free and open network that could continue to grow.
They can’t turn off our servers, or force us to implement their tech, or stop us from implementing freedom/privacy preserving features.
Yes and there are a variety of reasons why it is that way, none of which includes being picked up by a megacorp for profit and then being dumped later after they’ve extracted all the value from it.
exactly! The end result of EEE is basically the state we’re already in. I also don’t believe that’s what Meta intends. Despite how a lot of ppl here feel about it, the fediverse isn’t worth the effort of EEE. I think its more likely that Meta knows it’s on its last leg and is looking for something to latch on to (see also: their failed metaverse initiative). And the EU’s recent regulatory drive probably makes the fediverse look even more useful for Meta to attach itself to
No it doesn’t because you can’t extinguish a publically available standard when anybody can write their own software. XMPP is the horror story used to warn about EEE, but it still exists. The fediverse is a small network right now. If Meta tried to EEE it, server admins who don’t want to participate in a Meta-controlled network would not implement Meta’s extensions. The network would splinter into a Meta-fediverse and the actual fediverse, which would be smaller than it is now but still exist as a free and open network that could continue to grow.
They can’t turn off our servers, or force us to implement their tech, or stop us from implementing freedom/privacy preserving features.
It “still exists” but user adoption is basically zero, which is the opposite goal of open standards.
User adoption here is also “basically zero.”
Lemmy is a rounding error in population versus larger sites. It’s a walled garden.
You cannot weaken the fediverse more than the near-total lack of adoption that already exists.
Yes and there are a variety of reasons why it is that way, none of which includes being picked up by a megacorp for profit and then being dumped later after they’ve extracted all the value from it.
Assuming it is picked up and dropped, the fediverse is completely unchanged. That’s my point.
exactly! The end result of EEE is basically the state we’re already in. I also don’t believe that’s what Meta intends. Despite how a lot of ppl here feel about it, the fediverse isn’t worth the effort of EEE. I think its more likely that Meta knows it’s on its last leg and is looking for something to latch on to (see also: their failed metaverse initiative). And the EU’s recent regulatory drive probably makes the fediverse look even more useful for Meta to attach itself to