I wonder if Fediverse devs and power users realize there's about to be a massive infusion of capital into ActivityPub projects—and this capital will change everything.
@lashman Usually, it's for the worse. But this is also why people need to be cognizant about what's coming.
@lashman If the old guard wants to preserve their identity, they need to organise instances into co-ops.
On the other hand, I have faith in decentralized (and weird) nature of fedi.
Instances can be spun up easily, and people can defederate from problematic instances quickly: this means to me that even if a lot of money gets pumped into ActivityPub, for a long time there will remain a way for people to move across instances and find a home away from the "mainstreamed", VC-funded parts of it.
And it will be easier than → fedi migration.
If we keep making a strong point about decentralization, about interoperability, about FLOSS, etc., it will be difficult if not impossible to completely destroy it.
If people remember how hard it was to get out of walled gardens and into fedi in the first place, it will be hard to convince them that a new walled garden is all that great.
And finally, AGPL makes things real hard for anyone trying to lock fedi down.
But also, a fracture already exists in fedi. Some instances refuse to federate with some other instances, due to... differences of opinion on what is acceptable content.
And you know what? That's fine. Because users can just set up alts and choose their own adventure.
If that gets *bad*, then people will gravitate towards instances that implement more rigid spamfiltering, that at the same time does not interfere (too much) with regular communication.
This is a *hard* problem, and larger instances, especially GAFAM-owned ones (thus, well-resourced), will be at an advantage here.
The real danger isn't Big Tech or something joining fedi. The real danger is after they do join fedi: will people gravitate towards the "better service" on their instances?
If they do, we're in the XMPP situation, where the embrace-extend-extinguish, while not fully successful, was quite bad.
@atomicpoet here's hoping it won't manage to ruin the entire thing. I'm honestly very curious what'd happen if a major corporation either outright took over a project or at least ran and promoted a major instance, and what the effects on the rest of the fediverse would be.
@atomicpoet I'm honestly rather curious how that one will turn out. For now it's... nothing. Just a bunch of crossposters.
@daniel VCs have been working on decentralized social tech for awhile. Hell, I was on one such project for two years (our approach was much different from AP). It's ActivityPub that's broken though, though, and that's solved a fundamental problem in terms of where capital is going. We've now moved beyond the R&D stage for "how to decentralize and get mass adoption". ActivityPub has problems, but most devs can live with those problems because of momentum.
@atomicpoet AP is just one protocol. The fediverse could work with many of them, so I just buy some popcorn… you cannot force people to be your customers, if they don’t like.
@loweel That's true, but the question is always about momentum. From a VC point of view, the success of ActivityPub provides validation for decentralized social media, while also lowering perceived risk.
@atomicpoet Is that a good thing? We’ll need to be *very* mindful of hostile takeovers and people trying to circumvent the word and spirit of copyleft now.
In such an environment, a new client that does not use AGPL as license without a CLA might actually be harmful in the long run.
@ArneBab Companies have already made billions if not trillions while abiding by GPL and similar licenses. Example: Linux
The question isn't whether or not there should be capital—because there is. It's how do we organize to make that capital sustainable to all stakeholders.
Personally, I feel if users are depending on instance admins, that already creates a hierarchy.
One way around this problem is through co-ops like social.coop. But we'll see what happens with that.
@atomicpoet what I can't tell is the conclusion here. Where does this lead? The VCs will (almost certainly) lose interest. Whether there's enough momentum to actually get us anywhere and the EU won't kill their instance remains to be seen. Even in the "worst case" where there is a persistent mass influx into the fediverse and it sort of gets absorbed into the mainstream, I wonder if "our corner" of it could still manage to retain its culture as it is today, and how much intentional isolation that would involve. It does seem like at least the means to do that exist, and I can tell you for certain there are plenty of people who'd at least be interested in considering it.
@louisrcouture If you're the kind of person who likes things exactly as they are now, then it's for the worse.
But it could be for the better depending on where your goals align.
@atomicpoet oh I definitely want more people to join, but I do not want centralization, or surveillance capitalism
@louisrcouture Centralization isn't the selling point for ActivityPub, and if you're looking to centralize, it's unlikely you can compete with the likes of Facebook anyway. Not to say people won't try, but they'll probably fail.
@louisrcouture Then you better be protective about the general idea of decentralization and PAY whoever hosts your stuff as an incentive to keep it that way.
And ultimately, that also means more capital flowing into the Fediverse.
@atomicpoet Well I did apply for nlnet (I think that's what it was) when the UK was still technically within the EU, but soon to depart. But alas I was unable to hitch onto the gravy train.
If there is an infusion of capital I doubt it will be private. It's difficult to see how they would make ROI in conventional terms. The late McAffee tried with Hiveway, and pretty much got run out of town. But government capital perhaps could happen, beyond what the EU is already doing.
What will change it more than capital? Users.
When you invite normies, your network becomes a place for normies to talk about normie things.
@mayonesa When it comes to users on the Fediverse, I'm pro-normie. Everyone should use decentralized social media.
@atomicpoet I imagine the idea will be similar to what happened in the 2000s: use open web to gain an audience; create interface that makes it easier for audience to connect; build walls around it. As long as there are enough people who won't get siphoned into future facebook, the fediverse should be fine
@atomicpoet I suspect that the fediverse will end up a lot like how email is now. There will be big commercial instances for the general public, company-specific instances for internal use and marketing, and then the hardcore crowd will still be able to set up their own but the average user probably won't.
This means that while "gmail.com blocks mail from your personal e-mail server" is a serious problem, "social.gmail.com doesn't federate with your personal instance" is much less of a serious problem.
Also, fedi is way more... social (duh) than e-mail. Local timelines are a thing, and an important reason for users to choose a given instance.
The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit