Is this the same Meta that Mastodon partnered with to create the Social Web Foundation?
How odd, I thought they were the good guys…
https://socialwebfoundation.org/mission/
#meta #mastodon #SocialWebFoundation https://universeodon.com/@TomWellborn/113279390984674388
We want the Fediverse to be healthy
We believe a healthy Fediverse is able to support free expression while also giving individuals and providers choice over what they’re exposed to. Want a service with inbuilt fact-checks? Or one that is focused on fighting abuse and harassment? Or one that recommends content that corresponds with your faith or personal interests? You should have that choice. And there’s some types of content – spam, violence and illegal sexual content – that no one needs to see. We want to make sure people have the tools they need to filter them out.
We want the Fediverse to be financially viable
The Fediverse cannot thrive without people building clients or running providers. And to do those things, they need money. Whether that’s advertising supported, or funded by charities and non-profits, or based on paid-for services, or affiliate revenue, we are working to find ways that companies can do well in the Fediverse.
And then they followed suit!
@aral Also growth at any cost is just "move fast and break things". It is possible that Threads could be such a bad experience that it poisons the well, or that they make breaking changes to ActivityPub which creates a python2/3 situation.
@aral Wow! These days everything is not as it seems, had no idea thanks for posting.
@aral I don't get what they mean with "…financially viable and multi-polar Fediverse…" but I guess it means that then.
Maybe polar in the sense of: If there is ActivityPub projects with no money at all, we also have to embrace some with loads of it. Polarity and all. Just to even things out in the grand scheme.
@aral @TomWellborn Mastodon did not partner with anyone. We support the SWF because we feel this is really needed for the Fediverse to move forward. Meta might think the same, but there is no such partnership (or any other kind of relationship)
@renchap
Mastodon gGmbH is listed as a partner of the #SocialWebFoundation!
The mission of SWF does not match, if not contradicts the purpose and object of the gGmbH.
In my point of view this is the beginning of "embrace, extend and extinguish" of #activitypub like we saw with #xmpp
@goetz @aral @TomWellborn Yes, we are a partner / member / supporter / … of the SocialWebFoundation, as I said above, because we think such an organisation is needed for the Fediverse to grow. We are not involved in the Foundation creation, or it's management, neither we have partnered with Meta about anything.
@aral @goetz Mastodon supports the SWF foundation. They call us partners because of this support at launch I guess. I have no idea what relationship they have with Meta. And there is no relationship between Mastodon and Meta.
Similarly, Meta is a W3C member, Mastodon participates to some W3C meetings about ActivityPub.
@goetz before worrying about Meta, you should know that the ActivityPub ecosystem is already suffering from Mastodon's inept leadership role that ended up in a perhaps less malicious but equally harmful Embrace, Extend and Extinguish of the protocol. See how many servers/clients are out there that don't bend to Mastodon's implementation quirks. It's sad and frustrating how they're dedicating zero resources to improving their ActivityPub spec compliance.
@goetz @renchap @aral @TomWellborn XMPP is doing fine btw. I deleted all the walled gardens like WhatsApp and Signal for Conversations+Gajim in 2021 or so.
@aral + Pixelfed + Write Freely.
@andre Yep, sadly. I’m very disappointed.
@aral To put it mildly, yes.