• Otter
      link
      fedilink
      English
      011 months ago

      It is

      I’m not sure if defederating is the correct counter to it

      • @scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        211 months ago

        Defederating from known-bad-actor corporations during the “embrace” phase seems like a perfectly wise choice to me. Keeps them from getting to stage 2.

        • Otter
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          It’s not about us embracing them, it’s about them embracing the protocol, which they can do whether we stay federated or not.

          The argument against defederation is that it tells newcomers that the defederated instance is an island and they’re better off joining the place where they can talk to their friends. Meta can more easily extend if we’re not around to explain why extending is a bad thing, and if we’re not around to advocate for people to ditch Meta’s platform and join an open one

          Here is what it actually means

          Embrace: Development of software substantially compatible with a competing product, or implementing a public standard.
          
          Extend: Addition and promotion of features not supported by the competing product or part of the standard, creating interoperability problems for customers who try to use the "simple" standard.
          
          Extinguish: When extensions become a de facto standard because of their dominant market share, they marginalize competitors that do not or cannot support the new extensions.
          
          • @scarabic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            311 months ago

            I think it’s naive to imagine that anything we say or do will influence Meta’s behavior or strategy in any way. But I do see your point that when an instance defederates from Threads, it makes an island of itself, not of Threads.