this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2023
194 points (100.0% liked)
Fediverse
287 readers
1 users here now
This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the federated social networking ecosystem, which includes decentralized and open-source social media platforms. Whether you are a user, developer, or simply interested in the concept of decentralized social media, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as the benefits and challenges of decentralized social media, new and existing federated platforms, and more. From the latest developments and trends to ethical considerations and the future of federated social media, this category covers a wide range of topics related to the Fediverse.
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why doesn't activitypub add like a copy left of sorts to their software?
Make it so no entity can host an instance. No corporations, countries, etc.
You want "entities" to host activitypub instances. It would be great if schools, newspapers, flying clubs, municipal governments, etc. all had their own instances running.
What you don't want is a for-profit company to use its monopoly to embrace, extend and extinguish the protocol. But, you can't prevent that with a rule like "no entity can run an instance". Really, what you need is governments to use their antitrust powers to block anticompetitive actions. Google arguably had a near monopoly in email, that's why they were able to use gmail chat as a lever. Microsoft had a desktop monopoly, that's how they used it to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish Netscape.
It was just an example. You could change it to be however would be best suited. Eg: "No For-Profit entities(Or entities linked to entities) with an annual income greater than 1million USD."
Im not a lawyer, but im sure you could make something that would work and would be very hard to get around.