- cross-posted to:
- selfhosted@lemmy.world
- hackernews@derp.foo
- cross-posted to:
- selfhosted@lemmy.world
- hackernews@derp.foo
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/7456748
The mission-driven tech company behind the Firefox browser, Pocket reader and other apps is now investing its energy into the so-called “fediverse” — a collection of decentralized social networking applications, like Mastodon, that communicate with one another over the ActivityPub protocol.
I just read the entire article and I don’t see why Mozilla really wants in on the Fediverse. It covers a lot of how it wants in, but not the driving motivation.
My best guess is they want to be the next Facebook/Twitter. They see a window and think it’s not something to miss.
Never forget: “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish”, even if it’s from a relatively liked company like Mozilla.
I doubt they want to be a big instance — in the end, they simply don’t have the resources for it.
If anything, I imagine this “investment” is simply a part of their bigger market positioning as “privacy provider”, along with Mozilla VPN and their email service.
Which might be somewhat profitable for them but I’d say it’s also good for the consumers — they at least become aware of the product.
I think so. They don’t even have the server to store Firefox user credentials.
I am a bit cynical about it as well, but on the other hand mozilla’s entire shtick and what’s keeping them alive is their privacy oriented, anti-google approach. If they enter the fediverse they’d probably stick to these principles since they are the only reason why you’d want to go with them over the competitors in the first place, right? So it could be a good thing maybe.
Success might eventually breed a monster but let’s cross that bridge when we come to it like we are doing with Google and FB etc. by seeking alternatives.
Plus, I’m not sure a monster in the fediverse is nearly as bad a thing when you can easily jump to a different provider.
The risk is that Mozilla is in a position to add features and stability at a rate that smaller developers cannot possibly replicate. By doing so they risk becoming the defacto standard (embrace/extend). Then they get to dictate what the entire platform should or should not do. And you’re either on board or left in the dust. And if Mozilla decides that moderating a social network is too much of a liability, then we’re at extinguish.
To be frank, I’m so jaded by big players in this late stage capitalist world that I don’t trust anyone I might otherwise be fine with, like Mozilla.
I think the problem there is that if the fediverse were to be adopted by the masses the general population wouldn’t pay attention/wouldn’t even care and just use whatever instance was most convenient for them, and if an insurance has a large proportion of users it inherently has power over the entire network
If meta entered properly like everyone thought they might, they could massively control the entire fediverse by threatening defederation with instances that don’t comply with their rules. Because they have so many users and generate so much content no instance wants to be cut off
That example probably wouldn’t work for the fediverse as it stands right now as we’re pretty much all nerds, dislike companies like meta and probably wouldn’t enjoy the content generated by its users anyway but it stands as an example
My “secret” is I’m fine defederating with fb or any other larger player because nerds are all I really want to socialize with anyway. Those of us here would lose nothing by fb joining and defederating.
I get that, that was the whole point of that comment is the likes of us wouldn’t want to interact with Facebook but as I said that’s just an example.
Imagine the chaos if Reddit implemented activitypub, or discord with their threads feature, or even just a new instance like world that snaps up a lot of users for one reason or another, plays it safe for a while and acts benign until they’ve got the bulk of the users and then starts imposing their rules on other instances
I mean, we all probably said similar things about Google 20 years ago. It was a liked company that brought a lot of cool innovations to the web. Or even relatively more recently with Chrome. At launch it was liked, but now it’s weaponized.
To be fair, there are far, FAR worse players than Mozilla. I might even be so far as to be convinced they have benign interests at heart at the moment. But corruption always follows domination.
Yeah but Google won, they became the biggest and now can do whatever they want. Unless Mozilla gets close (and I dont think they ever will, even remotely), I dont think they’re in the same situation. Until then I kinda just root for them to survive and exist as competition, even if they have such a small market share compared to google.
It also took several years of utter dominance before they started to drift into their current monstrousness. It’s not just that they won, but they also stayed winning.
Even if Mozilla don’t have a huge marketshare, they were behind Rust language. :)
It’s interesting you picked that, since the origins of that phrase is why Mozilla was even founded. And why they worked so damn hard for so many years on web standards.
Mozilla has been a big advocate for a decentralized web for awhile now. Joining the Fediverse seems like a natural move for them; honestly surprised they didn’t do it sooner.
If you take that view, you will never be satisfied by the official motivation expressed by a non-profit organization. That’s the reason you don’t see why – you are refusing. But are you wrong? Only Mozilla knows.
At least as Mozilla exists now, I think it would be much harder for it to become “enshitified”.
Preface: IANAL, just going off my best understanding.
The Mozilla Corporation is actually wholly owned by the Mozilla Foundation, a non-profit. Profits that the corporation generates are the property of the Foundation, which falls under all the usual restrictions for spending and reporting that 501.c.3 orgs have. So at least as they exist now, Mozilla’s profits cannot be used to enrich executives or investors, which is the driving motivation behind the enshitification cycle.