this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Fediverse
17710 readers
1 users here now
A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.
Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".
Getting started on Fediverse;
- What is the fediverse?
- Fediverse Platforms
- How to run your own community
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't consider being on Threads as being "on the fediverse". My definition of the fediverse is servers that follow the Activity Pub protocol to interact with each other. You might disagree with that definition, but Threads only lets us "follow" (view-only) certain of their accounts (only about 2000 out of millions) from Mastodon. Those accounts do not see any replies to their post from the fediverse, or any fediverse posts at all for that matter--we are invisible to them. So no, he's not "on the fediverse", he's on Threads. I doubt he knows the fediverse even exists.
If I can follow some mainstream entertainment accounts from Mastodon, I'm fine with that. I dislike having to log onto Twitter or Threads just to find out what some motorsports teams are up to.
They slowly start it. When Google killed XMPP they also didn't do it within a week.
If Google killed XMPP, how come some enterprise communication products (off the top of my head I can name two that are successful at least in Europe) use it?
There is XMPP the protocol which is indeed still widely used by commercial entities, and there is XMPP the open federated network, also called Jabber, which is still alive but Google did kneecap it pretty hard back then.
XMPP as used in the enterprise communication product my employer uses (AFAIK based on the common open source implementation) sucks as much on mobile as Xabber which I used back in the day. I get notifications 30 minutes late if at all. That thing killed itself by not adapting to smartphones.
That's a bad implementation then. Modern open-source XMPP works great on mobile, no problems with notifications at all on Android. iOS is more of a mixed bag, but that is solely Apple's fault and applies to all messengers other than iMessage.
The issue was the state of mobile clients when XMPP died in the mainstream and state of the art was crap like Xabber. Conversations was better but too little, too late.
Telegram works flawlessly pretty much everywhere, including iOS which my mom uses.
Well, Monal on iOS doesn't work worse than Telegram on iOS, so then apparently it's flawless as well. I am not an iOS user, but I heard complaints about Telegram on iOS as well regarding notifications.
Again: The current state is irrelevant when discussing the time frame when Google allegedly killed it. The state of Jabber and its clients was just abhorrently bad back in the day. That was the reason the world moved to WhatsApp. Google Talk has always been a niche product. That's why it's dead.
It's not dead, and works fine. I am not disagreeing that it had a serious set-back but that's water down the river.
Also WhatsApp is using a slightly modified version of XMPP, so your argument is a bit funny :)
Obviously modified enough to work better with mobile when it launched than Jabber's state of the art back then.
Again: Google did not kill Jabber. Jabber achieved its downfall on its own by being bettered by proprietary services that just worked better on mobile devices BACK THEN.
Google Talk was never Jabber. The Google Jabber integration was way before that in Gmail. Google Talk was what came after Google decided to abandon Jabber.
And yes Google very much held Jabber back by having the largest user-base in their Gmail integration and refusing to even implement SSL for that let alone supporting any other innovations like better mobile support. If Google had actually supported Jabber instead of sabotaging it, we would not have this discussion.
Wikipedia says otherwise.
Google kills messaging services all the time and launches new, incompatible ones. Google did not sabotage Jabber, they sabotage their own chat services all the time.
Thing is, for federation to work, his team had to opt into it. The fact that his statuses and profile render natively in Mastodon and Akkoma are a pretty strong start.
I'd like to see Meta put their money where their mouths are, and finish the integration. I think we'll probably see that happen sooner rather than later.
Personally I hope they never do, though it does look likely. Like many pre-November '22 old-time Mastodon et.al. fedizens, I came to the fediverse specifically because I didn't want to have anything with FB/Meta/Twitter or the other commercial, "engagement"-based, enshittified social media.
It feels like the fediverse is being gentrified, with half of it eagerly welcoming their new overlords (why don't they just join Threads?) and the other half resisting. The half that doesn't federate with Meta will move on, like people priced out of their own neighborhoods by gentrification, and become the new "real fediverse" where people can go to live free from corporate interference.
As someone who has repeatedly seen cities become gentrified (first Peoria, Illinois, then San Francisco, then Phoenix), I get what you're trying to say, but also don't think it's an appropriate metaphor.
Frankly, I think this is a bit melodramatic. The Anti-Threads part of the Fediverse will stay in their isolated bubble with little to no change, while the rest of the network continues to grow or change. It's not like operational costs are skyrocketing, or that hosting will become any more scarce or more difficult. It's not like the servers have to move to a different neighborhood. Gentrification is predicated on the finiteness of physical space and affordable places to live.
This is probably news to you, but there's not even a coherent, all-encompassing definition for what the Fediverse even is. The idea that there's a "real Fediverse" vs "Fake Fediverse" glosses over all kinds of history and nuance. The best anyone's gotten to defining it is by specifying protocols and interoperability, but even that doesn't quite cover it.
The Fediverse isn't just the parts you like, minus the parts you don't like.
You're also screamingly White; do you really think you have any latitude, any ground to opine on what is and isn't gentrification when the odds err closer to 1 that you've uncritically participated in this process before?
Y'know, if I had a watch on, I'd be looking at my wrist really condescendingly right about now.
Just because I have privilege doesn't mean I haven't experienced harsh realities that are relevant to this context. The idea that a person's race automatically qualifies or disqualifies them to speak on a subject without context or nuance is just silly.
You're out here mad because a dude expressed that it's stupid to compare server hosting for commodity open source communication software to societal decay caused by landlords, real estate developers, and people with four times the local income all rushing into a place and pricing out the people who already lived there. Y'know, something that actually has a real and tangible material effect.
Who said 'mad'? I asked you a question; "do you really think you have any latitude". Can't say your response surprises me either. I think your privilege absolutely disqualifies you from speaking without immense disclaimer-- which you didn't provide-- because you people can never be trusted to even properly parse the difference between prejudice and racism in definition, theory, or practice; so why should I trust you to properly define what is and isn't 'gentrification'? Especially considering the list of cities you give only gives me even more reason to believe you've participated in meatspace gentrification just as eagerly as you preach it over here? Tuhhhhhh.
Fact of the matter is, you and your little redditor weasel friends have done an admirable job at scuzzing the place up in State Department rot and water-bearing for all manner of genociders, war criminals, and merchants of death-- Meta included among at least two of three in that count. Their presence alone on the fediverse spreads that same Five-Eyed rot. That you either can't perceive, or won't perceive that, leads me to believe that yes. 'Gentrification' is exactly what they're doing. What you're doing. Just virtual this time; and if you believe corporate takeover of the digital commons doesn't count, you'd just be proving my point even more about your lack of standing or right to speak on the subject. They will embrace, extend, and then extinguish the fediverse as we know it, and expect you to pay for what comes after. Enjoy your dystopia, settler. You're no longer invited to discuss with me; not 'til you've done any kind of meaningful self-crit and preferentially some objective learning about the sociological place from which you speak.
That remains to be seen. There are multiple ways a single huge instance could drive up costs for everyone else, especially when there isn't organic growth that allows developers to find creative workarounds to firehose problems.
Lemmy has been seeing federation-desync issues over the last couple of weeks due to a bug in kbin being amplified by Lemmy.world. I imaging a similar issue but with a fully federated Threads would simply ddos most fediverse instances out of existence.
This isn't an existential problem. Just block threads.net.