Privacy, anonymity, security, centralisation of the Fediverse, the proliferation of the Mastodon API and quirks in place of ActivityPub, inspiring proprietary browsers to do the same in order to embrace-extend-extinguish, the inevitable commercialisation of the theoretical Mozilla Fediverse instance, inevitable breaking changes when Firefox introduces their own "helpful" features...
Firefox is a bloated, controlled-opposition browser. And it needs to remain at the very least a browser. Considering some kind of fedi integration is rediculous.
Terrible idea and article (no offense).
We can still greatly benefit from more server software. There's way too much Mastodon. Reinforcing interoperability with multiple implementations is good.
From personal experience, I've had people look at the two servers and said "Mastodon looks more official and put together". Pleroma has that kind of Y2K web design. So most people are drawn to Mastodon, even if they're equally capable.
Of course, Pleroma ships with the Mastodon frontend, but many don't know that, and a novice won't understand that.
Sounds like you don't like the idea. That said, your reasoning isn't really a reasoning, it's some vague opposition to anything that isn't small, artisanal non profit, spec-pure implementation of the fediverse.
That's naive. The gravitational force of a growing fediverse will cause all of the things you mention. A large player like Mozilla that understands the open web is a very good way to prevent the worst of natural tendencies and network effects.
Yes, I believe it's important the Fediverse players are largely non-profit and spec-pure, with slow, careful improvements to ActivityPub and the network.
Fee-based models are OK though. I pay for my email server, and would for my fedi.
> That's naive.
I think it's right, and a good ideal to aim at. It's also largely the current form of the Fediverse, so I disagree.
I won't support another "kinda federated twitter but in practice usuable and centralised and dictated by Mozilla proxies".
> The gravitational force of a growing fediverse will cause all of the things you mention.
That's not a certainty. And if it was, I'd rather it happen slowly, and I think Firefox integration would accelerate those problems.
> A large player like Mozilla that understands the open web is a very good way to prevent the worst of natural tendencies and network effects.
I'm not convinced. And what about Chrome being inspired to EEE?
I don't want large players. There's no need for large players. There's no reason for Firefox to adopt such a responsibility, especially when they can make things worse, intentionally or by accident.
I trust random FLOSS volunteers, because they mostly have the same interests and vision for the network. And that's not naive, I argue.
I think you misunderstand how networked applications grow and evolve through inherent incentives and network effects, not because of any single choice one (even large) organization makes.
I strongly recommend reading the Master Switch, by Tim Wu.
If the Fediverse keeps growing, there will be significant centralization, significant commercialization, etc. All to serve very good reasons for millions of users. Google and others won't need excuses to get in the game.
Hope is good, i could well be wrong.
I would just argue that sprinkling in some realism about how things evolve is the best way to ensure the core values you care about are kept. It won't be through best behavior by all, it will be through ruthless fighting for those values, finding the right allies, even if imperfect.
QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.