Hi, yes, I’m here. The user. Of both, in fact.
Both Bluesky and Mastodon have their quirks and their different cultures. The feature sets of their protocols may also be different, but they sure aren’t relevant to the experience at all, because federation is not a user-facing feature for the vast majority of the social media experience.
Stop cheerleading for social networks. Social networks are not your friends, including Mastodon or the rest of the “fediverse”.
No, hey, let me be clear, I don’t think you’re actively an ideologue, but you can absolutely disagree or actively advocate against it and still have your worldview filtered through that lens. None of us is immune to their context or their upgringing, least of all me.
What I do say is that the notion that “it’s not free, it all comes from taxes” is a very active framing, and it comes from an anarchocapitalist perspective, whether you agree with it or not. Yes, there is a cost to public services. And yes, you do have to tax people to fund the government that is meant to provide those services, but paying taxes isn’t the same as paying for a service, and public services aren’t “services you pay with your taxes”, they’re… well, public services.
And in the same vein, having an industry built on tipping is not sustainable and yeah, it’s a fairly (anarcho)capitalist perspective. Screw tips. You can contribute to an open source project, be it with cash, work, promotion or whatever, but you’re definitely not obligated to do so and that systemmust work within those parameters. FOSS is not software paid in tips, that’s not the point. It may be crowdsourced, but that’s not the same thing.
So hey, I get it, you don’t ideologically support those things, consciously. If you take anything from my comment let it be that you’re still thinking about it from that framework and there are other ways to frame it. You’re right that eventually the money has to come from somewhere, but how you frame the situation impacts which somewheres you’re willing to explore.
Yeah, for sure. I’m just wary that the line between cynicism and defeatism is thin, and defeatism leads to conformism.
If the system relies on integrity, it will fail. If it relies on shame or moral obligation it will fail. There is a reason on the other side of the fence they couldn’t root out piracy until they started providing more convenient (but more expensive) alternatives. If you rely on people feeling “obligated” to pay, they either won’t pay anyway or won’t use the software. That’s not a viable option.
So you’re left with the other option. Whether one agrees that FOSS is “broken” or not, the only way to make the system sustainable is… well, to make it sustainable. If that means enacting political change, then that’s where the effort should go.
It’s not a strawman argument. My response (which wasn’t to you) was triggered by the notion that we “need to normalize paying for foss”. I don’t think that’s true, and I do think it’d lead to generating a “tipping system”. Plus, again, not what the linked article is driving at.
I’m also not fond of “we live in a system” as an argument for playing by the system’s rules. I mean, by that metric people should just charge for access and call it a day, that’s what the “system” is encouraging. We need sustainable flows of income towards FOSS, but that doesn’t mean step one is normalizing end users feeling obligated to pay.
We absolutely must financially incentivize software developers. But charity is not a substitute for financing in a healthy system. The sources of financing can’t rely on badgering individuals to feel guilty for using resources in the public domain (or at least publicly available) without a voluntary contributions. I agree with the OP and the article in that the support system shouldn’t be charity. Tax evaders, redistribute wealth, provide public contributions to FOSS. We should create a sysem where FOSS is sustainable, not held up by tips like a service job in an anarchocapitalist hellscape.
No, it’s not, and it’s not the argument the article is making. The article is arguing for developers receiving public supoprt financed by taxing corporation who are currently evading massive amounts of money.
This is not a case of “no one”, anyway. Throw a coffee if you can is already how this works. And it’s not just “a coffee”, plenty of openly available software has alternate revenue streams, support from corporate backers and other sustainability tools besides voluntary crowdsourcing. The OP is pondering a systemic solution, not a moral obligation based on capitalist conceptions of how much time is worth and charity.
I hate this argument so, so passionately.
It’s the argument you hear from anarchocapitalists trying to argue that there are hidden costs to the res publica and thus it should be dismantled. Yes, we all have a finite amount of time. Yes, we can all quantify the cost of every single thing we do. That is a terrible way to look at things, though. There are things that are publicly available or owned by the public or in the public domain, and those things serve a purpose.
So yeah, absolutely, if you can afford it support people who develop open software. Developing open software is absolutely a job that many people have and they do pay the bills with it. You may be able to help crowdfund it if you want to contribute and can’t do it any other way (or hey, maybe it’s already funded by corporate money, that’s also a thing). But no, you’re not a freeloader for using a thing that is publicly available while it’s publicly available. That’s some late stage capitalism crap.
Which, in fairness, the article linked here does acknowledge and it’s coming from absolutely the right place. I absolutely agree that if you want to improve the state of people contributing to publicly available things, be it health care or software, you start by ensuring you redistribute the wealth of those who don’t contirbute to the public domain and profit disproportionately. I don’t know if that looks like UBI or not, but still, redistribution. And, again, that you can absolutely donate if you can afford it. I actually find the thought experiment of calculating the cost interesting, the extrapolation that it’s owed not so much.
I’ve been saying this from the go: users don’t need to know decentralization even exists until AFTER they are signed up.
What Mastodon needs is a proper migration flow that moves old posts and remote follows so users can decide if they want a new instance after they spend some time in the system and start to understand how it works. Any mention of decentralization on signup is a churn point, because decentralization doesn’t add any features to posting and reading posts. From a UX perspective, decentralization isn’t a feature.
Things are about to get messier once the big decision coming in becomes “do you want to see Threads or nah?”, which then actively requires thinking about a competing social media platform on the way into this one.
They didn’t “chicken out”, necessarily. It turns out that making huge social networks, and particularly for-profit ones, is not trivial. They connected a few accounts this week… but they also launched in the European Union this week, they weren’t even out worldwide until now.
But hey, don’t you worry, everybody is freaking out again. And if BlueSky ever finishes their own proprietary interoperability protocol and that is made AP-compatible on this end I’m sure we’ll have another hipster breakdown.
Oh, absolutely not. Let me be clear, I do not question that the author was involved in the project and interacted with Google. I do not question any of the factual details in the article and my argument is not that he’s lying. Total respect for him, his work at the time and even his opinions on how annoying and frustrating it was working with Google around.
What I’m saying is his perspective on the alleged failure of XMPP is specifically biased by his insider experience, that many of the examples he gives do not apply to AP, that the process he describes there is not EEE, that it’s not the reason XMPP and Google Talk failed and that, as he admits throughout the piece, XMPP didn’t in fact disappear or “die” after Talk’s failure or because of their intervention.
I swear, I’m so tired of naive takes about “good” and “bad” corporations.
Corporations are corporations. They are groups of people legally mandated to make money for their shareholders. They’re not individuals.
So yeah, I’m fairly confident that them taking steps towards joining ActivityPub is some mix of high ranking people thnking interoperability is cool, some other high ranking people thinking that may smooth over what seems like an immediate future full of legal challenges, particularly in Europe and some other people thinking that as long as all the newcomers to the Twitter corpse party are interoperable they can flex their superior resources and development.
Because that’s how groups of people behave.
But I’m also very confident that nobody looked at the rounding error that is the fediverse userbase, disproportionally made up of FOSS true believers and fringe infosec nerds and went “we need to plot their demise”. That’s not a thing that groups of people concerned with building userbases in the billions talk about.
Hah. Alright, it’s not deader than it would have been had Google not stepped in and then stepped out. We’re grading “dead” late 2000s instant messaging apps on a bit of a curve here.
Huh. I was just saying up here that I don’t think anybody genuinely believes the fediverse is a Meta competitor, but… guess I was wrong.
Mastodon does not have the upper hand by any metric. Threads alone has an order of magnitude more active users than the entire fediverse and Meta has multiple platforms with billions of users (and have signaled that they want Threads to reach that size).
You can absolutely argue that ActivityPub is a tech trendsetter and has an edge over BlueSky in that it’s already up and running. You can’t seriously argue that Mastodon or the fediverse are a threat, a competitor or have an advantage over Threads or Meta. One of the biggest hints that Meta isn’t going for “EEE” here is that it’s probably not worth the effort.
They do? I mean, a few times I did have to point out that Meta has multiple products breaking 2 billion active users, so the “fediverse” is a drop in the ocean, but not many people seem to stick with that argument after a quick bout of googling.
It absolutely matters under ActivityPub because, as I said earlier, it comes down to the client to manage the incoming packets. If Meta is out of date with the protocol but the rest of the federation is not (and retains backwards compatibility at all), then everybody else gets nicely formatted but feature-limited Meta content and they get garbled stuff.
It’s only relevant if we get garbled stuff and they get nicely formatted content. Which should be entirely avoidable if they “pull down”.
So no, not the same. And crucially people are still misquoting the article and the article is still misrepresenting the so-called “EEE” strategy.
Yeah, it does acknowledge that it still exists and has a solid community at the very bottom.
I do excuse it, it’s an article from an insider with an axe to grind that is bummed out that the Google integration didn’t make them win the IM wars and that Google was bad at supporting a secondary app, as they do. That’s legit.
But as a breakdown for a mallicious plan from Meta to “EEE” ActivityPub… well, it’s not even pretending to be that.
That is already how ActivityPub apps work.
It’s also not what happened to XMPP and, interestingly, not what the article claims happened to XMPP, even. You’ll note in the postmortem about it the recollection is that Google was too slow to adopt features and fix bugs, not the other way around.
I guess once you get enough confirmation bias in play you can embrace, expand and extinguish both by doing that and the opposite of that.
Yup. This is pretty much right on the money.
BlueSky and Threads are looking at interoperable protocols because they a) have engineers at home that think it’s cool, and b) see the writing on the wall about upcoming regulation and want to preempt it. This is probably good for other networks already based on interoperability, but there are definitely a ton of open questions.
The article is 100% revisionist history written backwards to justify a knee-jerk conclusion and XMPP is indeed not dead. Or not any deader than anybody else that got washed away by WhatsApp winning the messaging wars over the 2010s.
EDIT: Re-reading my own post, it’s too harsh. The article isn’t “100%” revisionist history, so much as a biased insider account. The revisionist history is largely coming from both the misattribution of what happened to a deliberate move from Google and the fact that it’s being misread and misquoted when people react to it.
Man, I’ve had two separate devices fail to install updates the last week, leading to tons of weirdness and troubleshooting. I even had to chkdsk c: /F at one point like a neanderthal.
I have enough coomputers laying around that I’d move more of them to other OSs, Linux included if I hadn’t tried that and found it as much or more of a hassle in those specific machines, be it compatibility issues or just fitness for the application. I’m not married to Windows at all, but there are definitely things that are much easier to handle there, which does justify sticking with it through the reinstalls and awkward weirdness on those.