Gregory's Server|
65 comments
@feditips @ThePlant @Mastodon I'm sorry but this is complete nonsense Microsoft used to play dirty against open source projects, but is now financing a ton of terrific open source projects Assuming that one day Meta changes the same way Microsoft changed, should Mastodon refuses this money like forever?  Microsoft changed? What? 😆 The same Microsoft that nowadays insists on spying on your computer? These are corporations, not charities. They do not have any genuine interest in anything except making money for their shareholders. Any company that carries out mass surveillance is not to be trusted. You can't compartmentalise that kind of behaviour away.  That's the very definition of too big to fail, sure they spy on you but have you not benefit from them even a bit?  @osc @feditips @ThePlant absolutely not an extremist position to hold prejudice against companies that spy on, leak information of and break users' trust. Additionally, these open source projects are beneficial to these profit-driven companies. From open-washing, to attempts at patenting (remember when Facebook tried to patent React?), to other decisions that come from a conflict of interest (Chrome being used as a vehicle for Google to control the web like nerfing adblockers, FLoC, and more..) @osc In 2017 Meta (Facebook then) did not lift a finger to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar that was being incited on their web site. This is pretty well documented by the UN and Amnesty International. Not wanting any relation with the product of that organization is not extremist. The extremist position is to say everything is fine when we have so much evidence to the contrary. @feditips @ThePlant  @thomholwerda@social.tchncs.de @feditips@mstdn.social @osc@econtwitter.net @ThePlant@mastodon.social i use fedora but im migrating to arch linux soon  @thomholwerda “well you’re already being watched, why do you care if even more people watch you, and farm even more data about you” :upsidedown: @feditips @ThePlant @Mastodon It's not to a literal economist that you will teach that companies aren't charities But under the correct set of incentives, the interest of companies can somewhat align with the interest of third parties that aren't their shareholders It's a very surprising move for Meta to support the Fediverse in the first place, which indicates that something evolved in their business calculus @pitbuster @feditips This is a patently false statement Their pivot toward open source date back to 2013-ish, way before they started to invest in AI @osc yeah, I was trolling on that one, I admit. But, they open source tools here and there, and how they actually contribute to the rest of the ecosystem? There are ton of "open source friendly" corporations that are still shit. @pitbuster @feditips Have you considered reading what you're answering to? @pitbuster @feditips I literally never disputed that Meta nor Microsoft profit on surveillance lol Reading is a skill you usually learn in primary school, what about exercising it?  @pitbuster Yeah really. But I've also seen a lot of techies say "Facebook has contributed React and does a lot for open source software, so let's not talk about the genocide" so it's not just economists who take this kind of position. It's kind of like saying "Monsanto has a great Pride float, so it's just fine to take funding from them!" @osc @feditips I was paraphasing you, silly. You said "Microsoft used to play dirty against open source projects" (that's the Embrace, Extend, Extinguish). You also said "[Microsoft] is now financing a ton of terrific open source projects" (that's Embrace, Extend). They haven't changed; they just haven't gotten to step 3 yet. 1. Embrace: Development of software substantially compatible with a competing product, or implementing a public standard. 2. Extend: Addition and promotion of features not supported by the competing product or part of the standard, creating interoperability problems for customers who try to use the "simple" standard. 3. Extinguish: When extensions become a de facto standard, they marginalize competitors that do not or cannot support the new extensions @osc @feditips @ThePlant @Mastodon I'd agree if you asked me 2-3 years ago, but they're now using code (OSS and otherwise) that is stored in GitHub to train and sell their for-profit AI coding assistant, and that's just the most recent example. They are in the business of making money. When it comes to open source, they're still in the embrace and extend stages. Take what you can, enjoy what they are contributing, but do not trust them.  @osc @feditips @ThePlant @Mastodon that's because Microsoft, like Google and many others, use open source in closed source projects. Edge, for example. Chrome. Etc. These were built on open source, adjusted enough to become closed and/or paid the legal fees required to own open source. It doesn't cost them much to maintain influence over open source projects, and the have all the money in the world. No idea what you are saying here, but I'm not here for it. @osc @feditips @ThePlant @Mastodon Ever heard about "embrace-extend-extinguish"? Yeah, Microsoft still does that. Google does that. Meta will do that. They just haven't had a direct competitor to do it to. Meta has already been contributing to open source projects they are using for their own services for years, but all of those are basic infrastructure, not services that could take away users (and therefore money) from their products. They won't play nice.  If Meta donated to Mastodon the same way anyone else does, it's not clear to me how it would even be possible for them to attach strings, given my general understanding of how non-profits work. Would it even be possible for Mastodon to receive funding from Meta through some mechanism other than a standard donation? That's where leadership matters. Amazon, Google, MS, etc have made pretty significant donations to the Wikimedia Foundation, but I wouldn't say Wikipedia has shown any particular deference to anyone of those in particular, at least as far as I've seen @ThePlant @feditips @Mastodon Even without an explicit agreement, Mastodon could be reluctant to do anything to hurt Meta out of fear of losing the revenue stream - and that implicit threat can be useful to Meta if Mastodon starts to depend on that money. Lobbyists don't always make explicit demands to lawmakers, but it still influences politics. There doesn't need to be demands, just the thought that the money might disappear if they aren't friendly. @ThePlant @feditips @Mastodon I agree with you but it's definitely good to be careful, or Mastodon could end up in situation like Mozilla where all their funding comes from Google and they end up indirectly tied to them and can't do anything that would anger them. As long as Mastodon diversifies enough, this is good, but should absolutely not rely on them. |
@ThePlant @Mastodon
How could there NOT be strings attached? Meta isn't a charity, it's a brutal corporation.
When you become dependent on someone for money, you will want to avoid upsetting them. That could be terrible for a Fediverse project if the donor is Meta.