Microsoft’s official @dotnet sent its first Mastodon post today.
Pay attention to the domain: dotnet.social.
Which means Microsoft is operating their own Mastodon community server.
@dotnet account was registered in November, but it became active today.
Clearly, Microsoft sees the Fediverse as core to marketing to developers. I wonder what other brands they’ll bring to the Fediverse as well.
Other people are noting that dotnet.social is not “officially” affiliated with Microsoft.
By why would Microsoft put the official @dotnet at dotnet.social if there’s no relationship?
Who are they trying to kid?
We see you, Microsoft 😉
@atomicpoet @dotnet @fediversenews Why would they not? They can migrate any time if they need to, but this makes it easier for their marketing crew. Most brand accounts are just accounts, not whole servers.
@LouisIngenthron @dotnet @fediversenews Look at when the account was created. Look at when the first message was sent.
Clearly, there’s been affiliation for a long time.
@atomicpoet @dotnet @fediversenews What does the account being created months ago have to do with whether or not they're affiliated? I don't see where you're making that leap. It makes sense they'd want to claim the name they'd eventually use early, even if they weren't prepared to commit to engaging yet. That doesn't mean they're affiliated with the server.
And that's on top of the fact that they've now expressly said they are not affiliated with it. 🤦♂️
@LouisIngenthron @dotnet @fediversenews Well, I don’t believe them.
You don’t think Microsoft’s lawyers will send a cease and desist if their intellectual property weren’t violated?
You think Microsoft wouldn’t park their official account there for 5 months if there weren’t some sort of relationship?
The reason it’s probably not “official” is because Microsoft likely doesn’t want blowback.
@atomicpoet Microsoft's developer network is extremely community-focused. This is absolutely inline with their past actions. There are hundreds of software packages available that use the .NET name as part of their branding, and Microsoft's lawyers have a history of going after none of them. Moreover, running an account instead of a server is the exact same way their marketing department works on every other social media, so why complicate things here unnecessarily?
Also, "blowback" from who or what?
I really think you're grasping at straws here.
@LouisIngenthron Surely you’re not unaware of how much of the Fediverse community views Microsoft, right?
@atomicpoet Not all of it apparently. I regularly interact with developers on here and haven't heard a hint of anti-Microsoft sentiment.
There are plenty of us .NET developers on Mastodon.
And anyone who hates Microsoft is free to defederate from dotnet.social.
@LouisIngenthron Maybe not all, but if I were Microsoft, I’d be worried about Fediblock.
@atomicpoet Mostly because Fediblock is an easily-manipulated relic that needs to go the way of the dinosaurs. Mastodon has outgrown it.
@LouisIngenthron I mean, that’s what someone from QOTO would say.
But marketers, especially of big companies, tend to be very paranoid of blowback and exercise caution.
I’m not saying that Microsoft owns dotnet.social.
But non-affiliation? I don’t buy that.
And clearly whoever owns dotnet.social works in lockstep with Microsoft’s marketing department—otherwise they wouldn’t put the account on that server.
@atomicpoet Or their marketing department tried to create an instance, saw how difficult it is to run on Windows, gave up, found a community instance already dedicated to their product run by an employee, reached out to him, and he was happy to have them, because of course he was if he was such a big fan that he started an instance dedicated to their product in the first place.
That's not only Occam's Razor here, but it's consistent with the story they've given.
And the unnecessary dig against my server isn't strengthening your argument; to the contrary.
@LouisIngenthron And lawyers were not involved? No higher ups signed off?
@atomicpoet What do either of those things have to do with your attempt to establish a relationship between the server and the company?
@LouisIngenthron That’s my point. A lawyer probably signed off, and someone with authority gave it a stamp of approval.
@atomicpoet *What* is your point?
Lawyers probably signed off on creating Twitter accounts (because Twitter actually has an EULA, unlike dotnet.social). Does that mean that Microsoft is in cahoots with Twitter too?
@LouisIngenthron Does a Microsoft employee own Twitter? Is Twitter a Microsoft product?
@atomicpoet Which has what exactly to do with lawyers signing off on the account? You're bouncing all over the place here.
@LouisIngenthron If you believe a $1T just improvises its social media presence—and doesn’t get a lawyer to sign off on something that establishes ground rules with the host—I don’t know what to tell you.
@atomicpoet If you want to continue this conversation, try replying to what I actually wrote instead of this nonsense argument you imagined me saying.
@atomicpoet @LouisIngenthron
"Microsoft just happened to arrive at dotnet.social"
Went through the same process as anyone - same process as me - had a look around at available servers, saw a "dotnet.social", "Hey, let's go there!".
@LouisIngenthron I don’t think there’s much more to talk about, and this insistence that Microsoft just happened to arrive at dotnet.social is odd.
Have a great night 👋