1. The Internet itself is federated and a mix of nonprofits, governments, and tons of corporations

2. Rude

3. Seethe, cope, etc. lol

That’s just arguing that companies shouldn’t be allowed on decentralized networks like the internet, which IMO isn’t realistic, but that’s of course okay if that’s your opinion.

Here are my full thoughts if you want to provide counterpoints: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/726305

This doesn’t seem applicable - how is meta being intolerant (or the people federating with meta)? Banning instances because they didn’t ban a third party instance isn’t following the paradox of tolerance.

Sorry if I’m missing something, are you saying meta should be banned because they have bad moderation, tons of bigots, or something like that?

100% agreed on just about everything. I don’t think EEE is even a good argument (I’d love to entertain strong arguments otherwise!) - kerberos seems like the best related example, but that’s not even very applicable, and I don’t think XMPP even was subject to EEE (here’s a longer response on that: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/708874 )

Lots of upvotes here but also lots of unhappy replies… I agree with you and want to expand on some things I’ve come across (I’ve written much of this in chats with other people):

1. It’s not easy to “embrace extend extinguish” an open protocol (look at the Internet/ipv4/whatever example) - kerberos is the most compelling example imo, but that still barely applies imo. I have a response to the XMPP example here: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/708874

2. Who chooses social media based on principles? Not very many people, plus even fewer people understand the technology enough to understand those principles (did you know tons of info is already public on activitypub networks?)

3. I guarantee 99% of people replying to you negatively will hop on Twitter/Instagram/Whatsapp/Gmail/whatever and continue handing their info over to super-centralized social media. I have friends IRL and most of them use traditional social media, so hell yeah I want to be able to interact with them from my own fediverse instance (where some info at least is private)! It’s the best of all worlds, and maybe I can get some of the nerdier ones to join me

4. “We don’t want to grow the fediverse Like This” - that’s fine, but why defederate from instances that federate with threads.net (call this second tier/party defederation?)? That’s punishing/activism (which is fine, but should the entire fediverse be activist like this? Most people just want to balance chatting with friends against data privacy/FOSS) instead of just having an opinion - if you’re not federated with threads, then you won’t have threads users interacting with your community

5. I just don’t like there being a cabal of fediverse instances that enact any sort of “purity test.” I’m so far from a free speech absolutist, but if I want to federate with lemmygrad and exploding-heads (idk maybe I just get curious someday), what purpose does it serve for lemmy.world or whoever to defederates from me?

P.s. re the kerberos example - it’s pretty egregious (look it up), but I would love meta/blusky to expand the activityub protocol, it’s missing so much (and the lack of activitypub advancement is another argument against this being another instance of the XMPP embrace extend extinguish)

(I’m interested in expanding my opinion on this stuff, so I welcome constructive comments. I would especially like arguments for and against first tier defederation. Maybe even try to support the EEE argument, but I’ll be skeptical on that one)