I and others have talked a lot about the #Facebook / #Meta#FediVerse issue over the past few days, analyzing their strategy, and possible responses, and why pre-emptive blocking isn't an effective measure.
This leaves the question of "what should we do?" So....
ITT: actually effective measures for building the resilience of the FediVerse and #ActivityPub, informed by the experience of the #OSS movement.
Establishing robust test-suites to define common protocols is a time-tested method within the #OSS world for preventing things like #EEE. This is used, among other things, for the Java language and JVM specs, the major implementations of which are controlled by corporations.
@emc2@smallpatatas Thank you for saying this. One of the biggest issues I have with these talks in particular #eee is that people are not being open and honest about Facebook currently abilities. Nor are they saying the hard part out loud. This requires adoption. As you’ve stated Meta can’t force any implementations on instances. For the threat level that’s widely pushed here it requires adoption and compliance. Meta can’t force anyone. That’s the discussion that is not happening & it’s doing a disservice
Some people accuse me of putting "embrace, extend, and extinguish" (#EEE) to a standard that is unfalsifiable.
First off, it doesn't matter whether or not EEE is unfalsifiable -- this was still a monopolistic strategy that Microsoft tried to employ to kill competition.
But as it happens, EEE actually did work on a few occasions. Most prominently with OS/2 Warp.
What many people don't realize is that IBM didn't merely make OS/2. It was a collaboration with Microsoft.
But Microsoft stabbed IBM in the back and made a competitive product called Windows. Perhaps you might have heard of it.
Much of Windows was based off OS/2. Windows even had a similar UI to OS/2.
Every part of EEE happened to OS/2. Microsoft embraced it. They extended it. And OS/2 was extinguished in 2001.
Why was this possible? I suspect a big reason is that OS/2 was proprietary, not open source.
I actually feel that "embrace, extend, and extinguish" (#EEE) is over-emphasized.
In actuality, Microsoft used a variety of strategies in order to further their monopoly.
One of the most well-known cases is when Microsoft funded the famous SCO vs. IBM lawsuit in an attempt to kill Linux.
Another example is how Microsoft would literally threaten OEMs if they ever offered another OS that would come pre-installed on computers. That strategy was actually the most effective -- not EEE. Numerous competitors couldn't even enter the market because Microsoft had so thoroughly scared hardware vendors.
EEE was just one tactic amongst many to maintain Microsoft's monopoly.
People actually think “embrace, extend, and extinguish” (#EEE) was a fun slogan created by open source advocates, and was never meant to be taken literally.
That’s not the case.
Microsoft made that phrase up, not open source advocates. And they meant it literally, not figuratively. When they said “extinguish”, this wasn’t an exaggeration. They really did mean it.
It's funny, whenever spreaders of "embrace extend extinguish" (#EEE) FUD come into my inbox, I tell them that the "extinguish" part of EEE has never worked against open source.
And they almost always reply, "Oh, we don't actually mean 'extinguish'. We mean something else."
Then don't use the word "extinguish" -- because extinguish means extinguish.
If you don't mean "extinguish", then you're clearly moving goal posts. Or worse, you're re-defining a word ("I don't really mean extinguish") to imply something happened when it actually didn't. Don't use the word "extinguish" if that's not what you actually mean.
You're not helping open source by spreading false EEE narratives. You're hurting it.
Actually, Internet Explorer 6 was once 97% of the browser market. That’s right, 97%—they had the browser market locked down!
If ever there was a situation where “embrace, extend, extinguish” (EEE) should have worked, it was with the open web.
Yet Microsoft failed. Why is that?
First, while Microsoft initially was installed by default on every Mac, they had neglected the Mac version of Internet Explorer. So Apple took action and made their own browser—Safari. They shipped this in 2003.
But also, Microsoft refused to build a version of Internet Explorer for Linux. This forced Linux advocates to build their own web browser engines, most prominently KHTML. Apple forked KHTML into WebKit, which was then used as Safari’s browser engine.
Thereafter Netscape rose from the ashes as Mozilla, released Firefox. And Firefox not only caused tabs to go mainstream, but also extensions too.
And where was Microsoft while all this was happening? Resting on their laurels, content with the belief that EEE would work. They never improved IE6. As all the other browsers came out, IE6 looked more and more worse.
But still, they had the corporations using it, so there was no fire in Microsoft to improve IE6.
The final nail in the coffin was Chrome. Corporations were willing to make the leap to Chrome because Google built backwards compatibility for IE6 with Chrome.
Microsoft tried to recover with subsequent versions of Internet Explorer. But they eventually discontinued it and released a new browser called Edge.
Nevertheless, Microsoft never achieved browser dominance again even with installing edge as the default browser on Windows.
Microsoft failed to #EEE the open web. It wasn’t the open web that was extinguished. It was Internet Explorer.
I feel like I’ve thoroughly debunked the “Google killed Usenet” narrative.
The problem with these “embrace, extend, extinguish” (EEE) narratives is that, facts be damned, the myth is too compelling.
Never mind that #EEE has never worked against open source. Never mind that open source projects like Linux, Git, and the Web itself continue to thrive. Never mind that the entire world is populated by open projects that killed their proprietary equivalents—rather than vice versa.
If a story sounds good, people won’t just believe it, they’ll double down even when you show them facts.
The problem is that it’s the supposed “fans” of open source—in this case, the #Fediverse—that believe in the EEE narrative the most. They’re the architects of their own fear, uncertainty, and doubt. They’re the ones trumpeting doom and gloom, telling all newcomers that they should cower in fear. Again, facts be damned, the narrative of EEE is too compelling for them.
Microsoft, Google, and Meta don’t have to say anything to make people scared for the future of the Fediverse. Fans of the Fediverse do that for them.
Everyone should read this (and Eugen, Byron, and Stux should be tied to chairs and have it read to them 24/7): How to Kill a Decentralised Network, about how Google killed XMPP and why Facebook looking into ActivityPub compatibility is bad news for everyone.
All this conversation about #Meta on #Fedi feels like the worst parts of geek culture. So technical, without understanding context or what strikes can actually do. My thoughts:
Meta will make a great app for Fedi because it has more money to throw at the task. People will start using that because it's better. It will have QTs and an algorithm. People they want to follow will be there.
A #strike / #fediblock doesn't let them do this. It prevents #Meta from entering the existing conversation with interesting content and dynamic developments. It makes it harder and more expensive for them to develop their own ActivityPub software, makes #EEE slightly more expensive.
Whoever thinks that we have somehow "won" by having them adopt #ActivityPub is deeply ignoring reality and history. We have opposing interests. They are capitalists, we are a commons. They want to eat us.
@loshmi I do not see it doing anything to make it harder for them to develop Activity
Pub, and zero to stop #EEE…. In one day they will have all the ActivityPub users to dwarf ours.
I combined things from my winding thread of 10 posts last night into one article here, on #mata and #project92 rather than forcing folks to follow post by post:
With the upcoming #meta#Project92 Fediverse service, there has been a, well, robust discussion of how to avoid threats looming. Those advocating mass-preemptive defederation make three cases for it.
➡️ To avoid data mining ...which Defederation does virtually zero to avoid any big tech entity scraping all the fedi public social graph today - Want proof?
see: https://is.gd/q8U2pv
The next argument is about poorly moderated P92 user posts and ad spam.
Which I'll discuss next.
To the argument that we should defederate to avoid #EEE: We cannot avoid Meta's embrace of the open ActivityPub standard.
Even if the entire existing Fedi pre-blocked them. IG has 1.6 BILLION users. in one day just on their own they will be the size of the current Fedi's MAU and grow from there.
Instantly the biggest ActivityPub entity on the planet. With or without a mass block.
So if we can't stop the embrace, what can we do to combat the second E?
Will cover that next.
What else can defend against the "Extend" of #EEE?
Having a broad set of OTHER allies inside the tent of stakeholders. Growing the base of those who "embrace" it to even out the power dynamics.
And btw, defederating developers PREMPTIVELY before they launch a single activtypub server, is the fastest way to make OTHER potential developers run for the hills. (Actually to run to Bluesky)
The last thought for the night on this is what I think is the most important. Up next.
Last thought on #EEE: We need to support our standards makers STAT. The best defense against "extend" is a clear line of what we are defending.
#ActivityPub has needed a robust "test suite" to test compliance for a while & good efforts were unfinished. They need to be picked up at warp speed. To see an example of his working for other tech see: https://webmention.rocks/
The creator of the Wordpress ActivtyPub plugin said that he wished he had this.
More on why in my last post next.
Last post on defending against #EEE: Until we get a robust test suite for #ActivityPub the risk is Meta or others "extend it" or the converse, support "almost all of it," but miss crucial bits.
Dave Winer mentioned once that Google leaving bits of RSS support out of Google Reader hurt the effort for years. (But it recovered and #EEE failed over time)
I'm working with a number of stakeholders now to see if we can build out an alpha of just this. Is crucial work. Want to help? DM me.
Wrapping up: This isn't a new fight. OSS devs have been here before. Many times. And won.
We have all the tools, development energy & moderation tech to protect our people we need - without first strikes.
We have past #OSS & open tech fights to learn off of & as @atomicpoet & @erlend have argued well: being open - if they are - is a first crack in #Meta's armor.
We may get a window - if we both protect our people & don't act insularly - to run an #EEE campaign reaching out to THEIR users.
No company ever tried to #EEE more than Microsoft tried to kill Netscape and own a proprietary browser. And in the end they had to fold to an open source Chromium with multiple stakeholders. And Firefox lives.
Beim 6. #FediverseModerationsTreff wollen wir mit euch zusammen über die Situation rund um #Project92 und eine eventuell zukünftig stattfindende Zusammenarbeit einiger Fediverse-Instanzen mit der geplanten #Meta-App sprechen, die mit Mastodon interagieren kann.