Embrace, extend, extinguish
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2023
179 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
45272 readers
1144 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
for anyone not familiar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
"Embrace, extend, and extinguish" (EEE), also known as "embrace, extend, and exterminate", is a phrase that the U.S. Department of Justice found that was used internally by Microsoft to describe its strategy for entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences in order to strongly disadvantage its competitors.
I feel like they'll just scrape it to feed their data driven ad machine. To them it's just a free open source of data to repackage and sell.
To paraphrase from a bank robber - Meta is where the users are. If we want open source technology to grow, we need to have users. If you block Meta out of the gate, how do you get their users to transition? IMO, energy should be spent on strategizing how to get the users to transition to open source instances, not getting people riled up to block them immediately.
They will datamine any instance that federates with them. They have had so many privacy issues it would be insane to give them the benefit of the doubt again. A leopard can't change its spots.. Not to mention the NSA docs & Cambridge Analytica.
They have proven themselves to be a hostile actor on the Internet.
They can fuck right off.
All they'll do is centralize the decentralized.
Bad. I just feel bad.
I think they would take advantage of Fediverse and destroy it.
Will be interesting.
More likely to be noticed by calckey,misskey/friendica users who are on platforms.more similar to Facebook. Probably noticed by Mastodon users.
Not sure if kbin/Lemmy users will notice. This is based on me not noticing posts from these servers on Mastodon, calckey etc
They're trojan horse. We can't stop them from creating their own servers, but we can choose to defederate them. Up with the Anti-Meta Defederation Pact
For myself, I'm not a fan either. But I think it could be a very good thing for the fediverse (still not a fan of that word)
which, as I understand it, is all about choice: the ability to easily access content across the fediverse, with the ability to ignore it just as easily.
If it ends up breeding toxicity, then I'll block any subs, and possibly the whole instance†. And if it gets really bad, I'll just find a lemmy/mastodon/whatever instance that has defederated from them.
† Sounds like this maybe isn't possible yet, but is being looked at https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/2397
I think @tchambers put it well on his Mastodon post: no need to preemptively block, but "stay vigilant with eyes wide open and a finger on the block button."
no need to preemptively block
I think this is like a Lucy and Charlie Brown trying to kick the football situation. How many times are we going to give capitalists who have shown their true colors over and over the benefit of the doubt and be shocked when they proceed to embrace, extend, and destroy?
It's not a preemptive block, it's a block based on a history of problematic actions.
Edit: Though idk if "blocking" them from making an instance is even an option. I expect a separate island of instances not federating with for-profit instances.
My problem with that is then the fediverse doesn't grow, meta controls the largest instance, and they make money off any posts that go viral here. I have to disagree for those reasons. They can go.
And they’d probably build in things to a slightly off standard so it’s not fully interoperable and when people call them out they’ll say it’s an improvement and they’ll be making it public any day now pinkie swears.
I’m here because I hate what meta and other companies are doing to the web, so I detest it.
Pros:
- my friends join
- larger community = more content
- meta funding would likely contribute to fediverse growth and improvements
- any instance can defederate them from said instance, which would mitigate almost every con
Cons:
- Meta is evil and wants all your information to profile you and sell to other companies for profit
If they join the Fediverse I am leaving. We have made the Fediverse to get away from coorporations like them, letting them join us will defeat the whole point of what we have.
load more comments
(1 replies)
This may be controversial, but I see this as a net-positive for the internet long-term. The more momentum the Fediverse has in terms of growth, the more incentive other services have to join it, and the more everyone on the internet can be on the same page. One of the worst aspects of the internet right now is that different services don't even speak the same language; there's so much fragmentation. The fediverse forces services to be about the quality of the service itself, rather than the quantity of the content being hosted.
Meta is a corporation with a really horrible track record
and even if they didn't, it's still a corporation; it only cares for profit
I have very negative opinions on them joining
We would be opening the door to allow a large corporation to do what they've done with open source for a while. They'll privatize the public commons.
But all this work [GPL licensing] was ridiculed. Microsoft, through Github, Google and Apple pushed for MIT/BSD licensed software as the open source standard. This allowed them to use open source components within their proprietary closed products. They managed to make thousands of free software developers work freely for them. And they even received praise because, sometimes, they would hire one of those developers (like it was a "favour" to the community while it is simply business-wise to hire smart people working on critical components of your infrastructure instead of letting them work for free). The whole Google Summer of Code, for which I was a mentor multiple years, is just a cheap way to get unpaid volunteers mentor their future free or cheap workforce.
Our freedoms were taken away by proprietary software which is mostly coded by ourselves. For free. We spent our free time developing, debugging, testing software before handing them to corporations that we rever, hoping to maybe get a job offer or a small sponsorship from them. Without Non-copyleft Open Source, there would be no proprietary MacOS, OSX nor Android. There would be no Facebook, no Amazon. We created all the components of Frankenstein’s creature and handed them to the evil professor.
This article is actually pretty great.
https://ploum.net/2023-06-19-more-rms.html
And for emphasis:
We created all the components of Frankenstein’s creature and handed them to the evil professor.
That's a great piece - thanks!
Nope. Money will buy blood.
keep corporations OUT
All instances should defederated with corporation instances ASAP
I think this is so interesting...
For a refreshing change, we have corporations coming to the users, not the other way around.
I'm deeply skeptical, but I'm glad communities and hubs have the power to block them outright.