Reminds me of the Bitcoin/BlackRock debate. They are trying to start an ETF, and all I can think is “Good, the more BTC is integrated into the system, the more it will change it, this is the ultimate goal”.
It’s not to say it’s without it’s risks, but if the system is not adaptive enough to work through any potential problems, it will never survive in the long run. Antifragility is a necessity of such a system.
Yeah people keep talking about open source and interoperability as this fragile thing that can be consumed by any sufficiently large player. It’s supposed to be less fragile, it’s supposed to be superior. If there is a bad reaction to adding such a large player, then learn from it and iterate solutions. Making tiny walled gardens has got to be the most boring experiment that I don’t care to be a part of.
Would be nice if instances had a default recommended block list, like how spam filters work. Nasty stuff is “blocked” but still accessible and I can move it out of spam if I so chose. Rather than defederating all the time
I think that an open systems that are universal and interoperable are inherently superior to any walled garden. If people think that the fediverse can’t handle or incorporate large corporate interests then this is a failed experiment and they should just shut it down now. Superior open systems should be able to dominate a free market environments, and people either don’t believe this to be the case, or the fediverse is inferior and will never beat the centralized competitors.
I also hate Facebook but for those reasons I think that Facebook joining the fediverse would actually improve Facebook, not worsen the fediverse.