Am I living in a different planet from the rest of the commenters here? We have much more to gain from this than they do.

Look up what happened to XMPP (Jabber) when Google "integrated" with them.

https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html

Basically the sequence of events as claimed by the author is that:

  • XMPP small niche, small circles
  • Google launches Talk that was XMPP compatible
  • Millions joined Talk that could coop XMPP in theory
  • The coop worked only sparingly and was unidirectional, i.e. Talk to XMPP ✅ but XMPP to Talk ❌
  • Talk sucked up existing XMPP users as it was obviously a better option (bandwagon effect + unidirectional "compatibility" with XMPP)
  • Talk defederated
  • This demonstrated exactly the importance of reciprocity. If Meta plays dirty, defederate them then. Now is just too premature. Also frankly it is Meta that has more to lose than the fediverse at this moment as the bulk of users and thus the content are with Meta.

    Didn't XMPP just lose to better messenger competition then?

    Did the [unidirectional] connection really make a difference to XMPP and its users?

    Didn’t XMPP just lose to better messenger competition then?

    It is perfectly valid to describe the outcome this way. I agree this is indeed the case. Google Talk gave way to other options deemed better too. Actually it did not gain much traction in my country either.

    But I guess it is the sucking of XMPP users and the whole feeling of getting "betrayed" that makes people holding a grudge to megacorps Google-alike.