• Qazwsxedcrfv000@lemmy.unknownsys.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year 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
      2
      ·
      1 year 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
      1
      ·
      1 year 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.