Recent searches
Search options
Facebook/Meta starts talking about the "Extend" phase of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish as predicted:
"“You could imagine an extension to the protocol eventually — of saying like, ‘I want to support micropayments,’ or … like, ‘hey, feel free to show me ads, if that supports you.’ Kind of like a way for you to self-label or self-opt-in. That would be great,”
(
) yes and it will happen.
the big tech standard bodies are theirs anyway and it is what fediverse embraces.
if an instqnce doesnt, it left the generally accepted consensus mechanism i suppose.
whata your take on defending against this?
@serapath Have a strong standard that doesn't allow for such extensions. I've been saying that since many years.
@jwildeboer @serapath I don't think this is possible with ActivityPub.
It might work with a much more centralized design, and with some very heavy cryptographic intervention. But even then, I'm not sure.
All protocols are extensible. Good protocols include a structured mechanism for extensibility; bad ones don't.
@jwildeboer @serapath and are you specifically saying that you'd want to prevent commercial activity on the fediverse at the protocol level?
That's something that's much more enforceable at the social layer, with server policies.
From reading over your thread, I feel like there may be some values that you think are implicit in the fediverse, and that you want to enforce at the protocol level.
It may be worthwhile to a) enumerate what those values are (non-commercial, FLOSS?, ...) and consider other structures for advocacy or enforcement.
@jwildeboer @serapath The main parallel I can think of here is amateur radio. In the US, and I think in many countries, ham radio bands are restricted to non-commercial use. Part of the licensing procedure is learning what kind of transmissions are considered non-commercial. And participants enforce the requirements with each other. It would be hard to enforce these rules at the protocol or equipment level, though.