How come these accusations aren’t thrown at piefed? Like it’s almost the exact same thing as lemmy just with more features like multi-community feeds, which could entice users over to piefed and leave current lemmy behind.
Or is EEE only EEE if it’s a corporation doing it?
Edit: I’m legit asking, I objectively don’t understand the difference between the two unless we’re taking motive into account? But that’s hard to prove motive either way.
It’s only EEE if it’s an entity that could be reasonable expected to do it.
Sure, Piefed could adopt ActivityPub, extend it with proprietary capabilities, and then use that to strongly disadvantage its competitors. However, Piefed is a fully open-source project without ads or any money-making aspect at all, started by some random dude from New Zealand. Not exactly prime EEE grounds, you know?
Basically, yes. EEE is a strategy developed by a dominant company whose revenue stream came from paid proprietary software and services but which embraced open standards with the goal of vanquishing the threat to their business model posed by that openness and maintaining/recovering their proprietary domination.
Does ActivityPub being open and used by many different projects & organizations pose a threat to Piefed’s business model? Is Piefed a powerful company that built that power on a proprietary model and seeks to preserve that power by embracing, extending, and extinguishing ActivityPub? With the goal of maintaining/recovering proprietary domination?
Yes, EEE is the software version of abusing your market dominance which may have been obtained via innovation (i.e. when Apple launched the iPhone) or enhancement of an already existing good or service (i. e. Lemmy).
They’ve been doing it for quite a while. Very slowly. The problem is it’s currently unidirectional, and opt-in. I imagine its the same reason Apple has adopted RCS (also opt-in): legal pressure.
If they just ignore it completely, legislators might completely fuck them like they did Apple with alternative payments. But if they kinda half-ass it then they can point to it and say “SEE, WE HAVE INTEROP! NO MONOPOLY!”
Honestly, I thought Meta talking about Fediverse integration was just marketing bullshit. Are they really doing it? 🤔
EEE, sorry.
How come these accusations aren’t thrown at piefed? Like it’s almost the exact same thing as lemmy just with more features like multi-community feeds, which could entice users over to piefed and leave current lemmy behind.
Or is EEE only EEE if it’s a corporation doing it?
Edit: I’m legit asking, I objectively don’t understand the difference between the two unless we’re taking motive into account? But that’s hard to prove motive either way.
It’s only EEE if it’s an entity that could be reasonable expected to do it.
Sure, Piefed could adopt ActivityPub, extend it with proprietary capabilities, and then use that to strongly disadvantage its competitors. However, Piefed is a fully open-source project without ads or any money-making aspect at all, started by some random dude from New Zealand. Not exactly prime EEE grounds, you know?
Basically, yes. EEE is a strategy developed by a dominant company whose revenue stream came from paid proprietary software and services but which embraced open standards with the goal of vanquishing the threat to their business model posed by that openness and maintaining/recovering their proprietary domination.
Does ActivityPub being open and used by many different projects & organizations pose a threat to Piefed’s business model? Is Piefed a powerful company that built that power on a proprietary model and seeks to preserve that power by embracing, extending, and extinguishing ActivityPub? With the goal of maintaining/recovering proprietary domination?
No. So it ain’t EEE.
Yes, EEE is the software version of abusing your market dominance which may have been obtained via innovation (i.e. when Apple launched the iPhone) or enhancement of an already existing good or service (i. e. Lemmy).
They’ve been doing it for quite a while. Very slowly. The problem is it’s currently unidirectional, and opt-in. I imagine its the same reason Apple has adopted RCS (also opt-in): legal pressure.
If they just ignore it completely, legislators might completely fuck them like they did Apple with alternative payments. But if they kinda half-ass it then they can point to it and say “SEE, WE HAVE INTEROP! NO MONOPOLY!”
Its a bit charitable to call threads a monopoly since no one uses it.
I honestly doubt that, It has no relevance – at all. I see screenshots of bluesky posts everywhere, but rarely see threads posts.
You’re giving me anecdotes and I’m giving you statistics.
I know, but the source for your statistic is Meta themselves.