|
Top-level
 30 people went to the corporate campus to speak with reps. Only one had anything to say about it afterwards. _One_ And because this company (I'll just call it Ecorp from here out). And because Ecorp enacted an obscure clause, no one knows who went under what capacity, or what was said. In that one write up, the only bullet point that could be directly attributed to ECorp employees was "A year ago, I did not know what the Fediverse was" Do you know what happened almost a year ago exactly? 2 ๐งต 15 comments
The other noteworthy point in that meeting summary post is now the leading theory for why Ecorp is suddenly interested in ActivityPubโ to get EU regulators off its back. But this reasoning doesn't align with the EU DMA orders. It sounds like it *could* but it doesn't. 4 ๐งต Ecorp's delayed entry into the EU market was not due to a lack of interpolation, but how Ecorp shared data between its apps. It got hit with a billion dollar fine and didn't want that to happen again. There are no examples of Ecorp complying to the *anticipation* of regulations. It's always appeal and drag feet. 5 ๐งต Additionally, it's unclear if Ecorp knew the details of the gatekeeper order before news broke that it was making an ActivityPub app. Ecorp didn't get its gatekeeper notice til July, 3 months after the story broke about the app. DMA was approved in 2022, but only for interpolation of standalone *messaging* apps. Not regular social media. Again, Ecorp doesn't comply to anticipatory regulations that harm its revenue streams. 6 ๐งต And shit, bless their heart as the only one to publish notes on that meeting. Because when it's time for Ecorp's CEO to testify to congress on suspicion of snuffing out an open sourced protocol, he won't abide by some bullshit house rule. Congress'll want to know who knew what when and Mr CEO will gladly give up names and quotes that'll imply he was simply acting on bad information. ๐งต Since zero records exist, including and especially anyone's offical capacity to speak on behalf of the Fediverse, who's to say he's wrong? And if you think, any of you nerds are going to testify as experts to clear the names of good people, I'd watch the old Cambridge scandal hearings. Congress never knows what questions to ask and who to ask it from. It'll be Mr CEO and his network of friendly news blogs setting the narrative. Beyond that meeting summary post, there are a couple other justifications about this situation that don't vibe with reality. A prevalent one isโ "Mastodon is too small to be worth it" or "why would ECorp bother with a rounding error?" For one, Mastodon user count isn't a rounding error. It's a behemoth of a network controlled by people unswayed by money (usually, I suppose.) For two, killing platforms before they get too big is Ecorp's whole thing. It's what they do. In fact, ECorp kept an early detection system built on a VPN acquisition that specifically targeted small start ups. Remember that VPN for kids ECorp launched to the App Store? Then later got caught slurping data? The app one pundit called "vampiric"? Yeah, same thing. It was hunting for small apps with momentum. Remember Houseparty? Me neither. Ecorp kept them busy for two months with meetings under false assumptions. Then, it cut communication and launched its copycat app Bonfire. In a panic, Houseparty burned through a $50 million round of VC cash. It was later forced to sell to Epic Games for $30million. You know what killed Houseparty? It wasn't a lack of growth. They ran out of cash and couldn't scale. No one wanted to invest anymore because of a phenomenon called Kill Zone. When the incumbent platform takes on a novel tech from the entrant platform, VC money dries up. Ecorp didn't find this study and use it. Ecorp *invented* the practice and a university studied it. https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/BFI_WP_202019.pdf If Ecorp is willing to kill a small well funded single-feature app for shareholders, what do you think it wants to do to a network of independent social platforms with no ads and a strong anti-corporate message? You think they're here to tell us how great we are? How awesome of cause we fight for? Or do you think they spent the first half of 2023 devising a plan to snuff out a threat? A threat, mind you, that couldn't pool enough cash to buy a house in Malibu. Let alone fight a juggernaut. Holy shit it's 2 in the morning. What was my point again? lol oh right. Divide and rule. Listen. The only way out is coming together somehow. And I don't mean in the bullshit way where the result is still somehow allowing ECorp to infiltrate while we "wait and see." We need to start sharing information with each other. Reject invites, special treatment, or anything that could sew distrust further. If you went to a meet, speak the hell up bro what are you doing? If an instance wants to do the "watch before block" thing, great. Write out and publish your terms. What is acceptable and what isn't? No more vague expectations. If a fediverse leader amplifies rationale thats misleading, call them in and make your case. Most want what's best for the collective. Give them a graceful out so they don't double down. Also, Ecorp will prob target small instances first. Don't let them. Unite. Last, keep talking.  @fromjason Unfortunately I think the sheer naivete of most (let's name the elephant in the room here: white) people, along with a very poor grasp of even recent history, will lead this place into fragmentation and destruction and ... *sigh* ... I'll have to look for another social media home in a couple of years. |
Gregory's Server
Mastodon got its big influx of Twitter users in late Nov. In December, NYT reported that Ecorp was making the app. By March reports of an app that can interpolate with Mastodon hit.
By June they were cold calling for NDA-enforced meetings And, by the way, making sure that their emails had enough context in it for a screenshot. 3 ๐งต