Follow

@switchingsocial@mastodon.at
It was just an example of how even in the face of you can get people to gravitate towards one particular provider, given enough .

Take for example, a glorified server, or , and all the rest of garden-walled implementations.

We need to do something different to break that cycle. I don't know what the solution is but it will be / , not .

@Gargron

@61
It's a known phenomenon: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

Remember Google Talk and XMPP?

@switchingsocial @gargron

@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.

@Wolf480pl
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).

@switchingsocial@mastodon.at @Gargron

@61 @switchingsocial @Gargron
Yeah, but I'm not afraid of a walled garden service that develops independently and gets users to move from the federated network into the walled garden.

What I'm afraid of is a service starting as part of a federated network, and then doing EEE or 4X.

Like GChat. Luckily, I don't think any noticeable population really migrated from other XMPP providers to them.

Mail and personal web sites remain the two big examples of a federated network that fell victim to big players offering convenience and features and in effect becoming the network.

@Wolf480pl

What would be the difference? At the end you end up with an unhealthy competitive environment one way or another.

@switchingsocial@mastodon.at @Gargron

@61 @switchingsocial @Gargron

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.

@61 WhatsApp is based on a stripped down ("optimised") version of the XMPP C2S protocol, but it has never been a part of the !xmpp federated network, nor advertised itself as such.
It's as if Twitter were to implement a highly modified version of the ActivityPub's C2S protocol. Would'n've made a slightest difference.

@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.

is one successful example of things done right, is a good example of things done wrong.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
En OSM Town | Mapstodon for OpenStreetMap

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!