I am not open to your ahistorical take on Google Chat and XMPP.
Google didn't do anything wrong by using an open standard.
They didn't do anything wrong by building a good interface that people liked to use.
And they didn't do anything wrong by disconnecting from the network when the spam and harassment outweighed the benefit to their users.
We, the XMPP community, failed to capitalize on success by diversifying the network. It's our own fault not enough nodes were there.
@evan the should have worked with Google to fix the issue.
I've already seen a lot of people quick to push Threads off the fedi rather than deal with the issues it might create
@dilmandila @evan but Meta brings eyeballs and users to the the fediverse. It also brings brands to the fediverse. I know a lot of people may not like those things.
But rather than block and run away, shouldn't we try and address the issues in the standard?
@anclement @dilmandila human beings aren't eyeballs.
Participation in the social web is a human right.
We will not be changing the ActivityPub spec to keep people trapped in walled gardens and out of the social web.
> Participation in the social web is a human right.
Really? https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
No, it is not a violation of "human rights" if, say, my instance or all instances choose not to federate with Threads.
That you bring "human rights" into the issue is a measure of the poverty of your actual argument. And I might add that Facebook has complete disregard for human rights.
@TomSwirly @anclement @dilmandila
Article 19: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Article 27: "Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits."
> all people have a right to be on the fediverse,
And indeed, anyone can get a free Mastodon account, or browse anonymously, so this problem is completely solved.
But you're going much further. You are saying is that people have a "right" to see Threads threads on Mastodon. This does not follow.
It's like claiming there's a "right" to see New York Post articles in the New York Times.
No such right exists, and you don't make a case why it should.
@TomSwirly @evan @anclement @dilmandila You're heading down a very dark alley in which lurks a Fediverse where "we don't federate with user_count > 400, we don't federate with gay owners, we don't federate with marxists, we don't federate with socialists, we don't federare with pro-Israel, we don't federate with pro-Palestine," and so on becomes the norm.
A splintered network. And all that because some people don't understand that pub/sub is user to user, not instance to instance, and want to punish other users while telling their users what they can subscribe and what they can publish.
@mikka @evan @anclement @dilmandila
> You're heading down a very dark alley
In a world where children are being killed right as we speak, this is hyperbolic. A sense of perspective goes far.
> A splintered network.
Yes, it's a federated system, that's the whole point of it. If you don't like it there are a zillion other social networks. Or you can have accounts on two instances.
> want to punish other users
Get a grip.
Evan Prodromou
Andrew Clement
Dilman Dila
Tom Ritchford
Mikka, MD