thathoe

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)

I don't really see an argument for "extinguish" on that article. It looks like just "embrace, expand, unembrace." I can think of a few reasons how meta could degrade the quality of the metaverse, but the example of xmpp doesn't quite smell right - activitupub is mature (even if I disagree with lot of the core specs), and the fediverse is much more about "eventual consistency" instead of real-time chats where both side have to be online at the same time.

I don't really see an argument where Google drew people away from xmpp - the author themself said that nobody cared about the few xmpp users, so it's not like Google was drawing long-time xmpp users away.

I'd love to hear other opinions on that article.

"wow it looks like actual sushi!"

Quote from friends after my partner and I put together a big sushi dinner. Yours looks amazing and also like real sushi :)

They've had data export for a long time, I helped make exports in support of a lawsuit more than 3 years ago.

Companies (like the New York times) can pay 12ft.io to make them stop bypassing the paywall. archive.today doesn't take that money

(12ft is still a viable backup if archive.today is broken for a site, though)

Most teachings of Christianity are leftist and teach love, while many/most vocal American Christians choose to most Christian teaching and instead use out-of-context quotes to bash vulnerable populations.

Telling somebody "you live a life of sin" or "hate the sin love the sinner" is abusive even if it's couched in friendliness. (This is bigotry, even if they think they're good people, even if they don't "hurt" the people they're calling sinners)

I don't think many people would be opposed to a community that agrees with this version of Christianity. I would push to defederates from any instance that has a large population of "prosperity gospel" or far-right Christians (choosing a friendly instance is a great draw of the fediverse).

(I was raised in an inclusive church then parents switched to a bad church - I'm agnostic now)

Edit: reading through the comments, it's pretty apparent that this user wants more of a free speech space and is baiting people to say no (e.g. "but what if the Bible teaches , it's just a fact"). Christianity is so old and its history is so much more complex than just regurgitating the King James Version - I would be against a Christian community without any historical nuance.

It is in some states.

Religion is also a protected class (re the pic)