• Qazwsxedcrfv000@lemmy.unknownsys.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 years ago

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

    1. XMPP small niche, small circles
    2. Google launches Talk that was XMPP compatible
    3. Millions joined Talk that could coop XMPP in theory
    4. The coop worked only sparingly and was unidirectional, i.e. Talk to XMPP ✅ but XMPP to Talk ❌
    5. Talk sucked up existing XMPP users as it was obviously a better option (bandwagon effect + unidirectional “compatibility” with XMPP)
    6. 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.

    • fiah@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 years ago

      If Meta plays dirty, defederate them then. Now is just too premature.

      HARD disagree. Meta has been fighting dirty since their inception. There is no reason to put even the smallest bit of trust in them, and every reason to do the opposite. Everything they touch turns to shit, it follows then that you should never allow them to touch that which you hold dear

    • Spzi@lemmy.click
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 years ago

      If Meta plays dirty, defederate them then. Now is just too premature.

      These actors play nice until they are too big to ignore. If you let them gain that much ground, it’s too late to isolate them without doing even more harm to your own network.

      Also Meta is not a startup with unknown reputation. Meta plays dirty, that’s a given.

      • Qazwsxedcrfv000@lemmy.unknownsys.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        They are already big. They have the users. They have the content. That is why they stay afloat with their ad business. That makes them valuable. It does not hurt if they are really sharing the treasure trove with us (which does not appear to be case after all if Verge is right). Rather laughably, you can say they have hurt us enough they can hurt us no more.

        • Spzi@lemmy.click
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 years ago

          Sorry for being unclear. What I meant is:

          These actors play nice until they are too big to ignore [as a presence in the fediverse].

          When they run the most and the biggest popular communities on their instances, do most of the development, offer the best tools and services in the fediverse, they have become too big to ignore.

          If they then start playing dirty, it is too late to defederate them. They will play dirty. Let’s not make ourselves dependent.

    • Kissaki@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

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

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

      • Qazwsxedcrfv000@lemmy.unknownsys.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        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 toward megacorps Google-alike.