Yes they probably will.

But my point would be that with AP being W3C and not management by meta or a different company the ecosystem of it can survive.

And too be fair until recently I still used XMPP so it was never dead. I think it was just that almost no one ever heard about it before Google used it and also almost no one really cared about it while Google used it. So the resulting consequence was that once Google dropped off completely it went back to no one really using it (like it was before).

AP already having a decent user base (some million active users, official accounts and instances of big institutions like the EU commission e.g.) even without threads and a big eco system(very diverse platforms and projects), there is no need for any platform to adapt to anything coming from meta. Things are good (enough) how they are currently.

It’s not that we need to compete or couldn’t exist without Meta.

Yes this EEE fear exists but I think it’s unreasonable in my eyes. AP being managed by W3C is one reason for it.

Sure Meta will probably extend AP for their own use but it’s not that they can simply decide that the new feature that they introduced and is at first only working on their platform is the standard from now.

I definitely agree that Nostr is something to keep an eye on but for me that’s more about to see if there is stuff that works and can be introduced in AP as well. Because of all the arguments above I don’t think we should all switch to Nostr now.

But amount of users is actually more a product of marketing than any technical protocol so I don’t really see that point either. Also I don’t see that being true, especially if you count in all the threads users.

My point of it being a W3C standard is more that it is a protocol that is in somewhat responsible hands. When using a protocol that was developed by and only for one (commercial) application in minds other players are always one step behind.

Mastodon (or threads) as the main platforms that implement AP don’t have any more influence on the protocol than any other platform as well.

but it’s been a W3C standard for a long time, and is still very niche.

Is it really? I mean there are already many completely independent platforms built on it (Lemmy, Mastodon, PeerTube, Pixelfed… To only name a few)

Plus recently existing platforms changing to use AP like Flipboard for example or threads (even if nobody is happy about the last 😅)

Additionally AP protocol can be adapted and extended over time if it’s really needed. That would also be an option in the long run.

I don’t get the first point. Do you think having variety in clients is a bad thing or do you think the variety in clients is not big enough and actually what does this have to do with the protocol?

The other points do appear that strong to me if we talk about developing a service and more about people who don’t want to host or do anything themselves but still want to have full control… Actually I think the better moderation structure that comes with AP is a plus point. I want a free web and not total anarchy in which the loudest wins.

Biggest strength of AP in my eyes is that it’s a W3C standard. AT was developed by a company to fulfill that company’s goal.

Also the Dutch…

I feel like if there is one, not many people in Fediverse would use it. Because staying anonymous and not constantly spread person stuff like your location has somewhat high priority for the people here.

Maybe it’s a thing about analogies that they don’t need to be 100% accurate. So I guess it’s ok 😄

I think that is a very bad analogy, because all of those are browsers that (historically) had all their different underlying engine but basically everything made the same. It was the same functionality implement 3 times.

With AP, AT and whatever X uses, it’s a completely different mechanism.

So it’s more like an Single Player Game, and Online Shooter and an MMO. In the end everything is a game but the way they are built and functioning is completely different.

Plus: if you are that dependent on you followers maybe it’s a good idea to be self hosted or at least choose a reliable instance.

Well obviously… But as a German I must say there is no possibly to use PeerTube in any legally save way in Germany.

That is not the fault of PeerTube of course it’s the fault of copyright mafia and German politics. Since PeerTube uses P2P to distribute load among all (which is extremely clever and should definitely not change), German law makes you responsible for anything you upload even if it’s in a P2P manner. So if you just accidentally clicked on a video containing Copyright protected Material or illegal content, you are seen as contributor of this content with all consequences.

So imagine going to jail because you clicked the wrong video… This is as stupid as it sounds and needs to change. Sadly German public is not carrying about this enough. I hope PeerTube will become more popular one day so that people are confronted to this insane law more frequently.

This weird type of humor is something the fediverse still has to learn

Actually that’s just from 51% of the fediverse, like the article showed.

Other still are open to this topic and give Meta’s threads the same chance like any instance would get.

What we all agree on is that meta needs to play nice if they want to be part of the fedivers. But it appears to me some are so disappointed from meta (or maybe preoccupied) that they will never give meta a chance.

Yes I read it and I simply do not agree with most of what is said there. XMPP is not dead and saying google killed it on purpose is to much of a simplification.

Worst thing that could happen if we federat with meta and decide on some point that this is a bad instance and block it, is that we go back to where we are now.

But since some governments and news companies already started to run their own mastodon instances it would be easiest for them to just keep up their own instance and federate with threads instead of creating another account on threads.

This plus all de Content created by people from the “free fedivers” would meta bring into a situation where they would want to be federated and therefore would (to an extent) do stuff to satisfy other instances. Our position against meta would be much stronger than how it is now.

So definitely not growing at all cost but excluding all form of commercial use of the fedivers by default would lead to fedivers remaining just a footnote in society without changing anything.

So I want not only meta but all of the big player to use ActivityPup and fighting for our (the users) favor without all their lockin tricks.

I just want to make this clear I’m also anti-meta and that’s why I want them to feel a need to open up for users to make it easier to switch platforms.

I would trust them as much as any other new instance of any other platform that joins the Fendiverse. That’s my point.

Yes by making it like a one-click Join from their other very popular platform “Instagram” and advertising it there.

That’s (most probably) why threads is currently not available in the EU. Gatekeeper practices like this would be illegal with the Digital Markets Act. But honestly it would be very easy to get around this. Just make it possible to join without an Instagram account. So I guess there are more concerns from Meta to not fullfil EU Standards than just this.

Sooo I guess EU finally did a good job here.

Actually I still think meta doing activity pub would be overall a good thing and a win for all of us. Users should decide what will be the best platform for them to use, free from any content locking reasons.

Meta being able to create completely new social network overnight and still getting more users then entire Fendiverse without the need to open up anything… That feels more like a loose for me.

But this is a very unpopular opinion here.