@61 @switchingsocial @Gargron
IRC hasn't really really been federated since the Eris incident, and AFAIK walled garden XMPP doesn't federate from the very beginning, so for all intents and purposes it may not be XMPP-based at all.
So AFAIK gmail is the only example where one party in a federated network gained a dominant position.
Correct, but the example wasn't about parties in a federated network, rather about services that by their very nature should be federated and collaborative instead of fragmented amongst competing players.
There is no reason other than commercial why a WhatsApp user cannot message someone on telegram or vice versa, or slack stopped doing irc. (Xmpp has gateways for this, though they feel in disuse).
In the first scenario, it's obvious from the beginning that the service is a walled garden, we can explain and show to the users how walled it is, and it doesn't exploit our openness.
OTOH, in the second scenario, the attacker is pretending to be one of us, hijacking our network's reputation, promising users that they can still contact the rest of the network, and then changing the rules after most of the users move in.
@xrevan86 Yep, that was my point. The current business model is fucked as it relies on hoarding users.
A saner business model could be along the lines of developing the protocol and then offer clients, hardware, services, etc., etc., that take advantage of it.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!