• dantheclamman@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are for profit instances that have not provoked the same reaction such as the ones run by Flipboard, Vivaldi, Medium, etc. But Meta has such a bad track record that it’s a case where most are deciding to exercise caution

    • jcg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      The companies you mentioned are also nowhere CLOSE to the size and resources of meta. I’m not sure any of those companies could overrun the fediverse as a whole even if they wanted to, maliciously. But Facebook? I have no doubts.

      • s38b35M5@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m more concerned about them fiddling with open fed standards like Google did with XMPP, resulting in its effective death.

        • jcg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s my concern as well. The companies mentioned don’t really have the sway to do that either, but Meta definitely could.

    • Candelestine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly. The reason to go straight to the nuclear option with Meta is because absolutely nothing else is powerful enough to do them any harm whatsoever.

      Smaller companies can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. But when a company can throw enough money around to buy every member of the Fediverse a new Ferrari, we need to form up for battle while we still can. Or we’ll be defeated before we even begin.