So after wading into the debate yesterday based on an article written by @ploum (and posted by @dangillmor), and the larger #fedipact controversy, I decided to share a slightly more coherent version of my thoughts. I still think unnecessary #gatekeeping and preemptive #bans suck and will cause a helluva lot more damage to the protocol than Meta likely will, but as always, hope others who differ in their thoughts will engage in some healthy debate, and not just resort to calling me a troll for having a different opinion than them.
https://careylening.substack.com/p/the-fediverse-metapocalypse-and-preemptive
@privacat @ploum @dangillmor If Meta federates with ActivityPub und its service fails (not bringing enough ROI) it will be a (small) win for the #fediverse., because it will bring some new users.
If Meta succeeds it will be simply the end of the fediverse.
The only thing beneficial to them is taking control over ActivityPub; the success of ActivityPub without their control however, is against their interest.
So there is very few to win by welcoming them in.
You simply say it will simply be the end of the fediverse, but based on what?
Why would it be the end; Why is fediverse so delicate that it wouldn't be able to withstand the mere participation of another group?
It seems to me that the history of the Internet has plenty of counterexamples.
Keep in mind how naive it sounds to say things like Meta's aim is to destroy fediverse.
Again, let's see your argument. These little jabs are just making it sound like you're reflexively repeating something you heard that doesn't really have much basis.
@privacat @ploum @dangillmor
@volkris @privacat @ploum @dangillmor I say it will be, if Meta succeeds, because their aim is to destroy it. I hope they won’t succeed, but welcoming them is naive.