I really hope they're just getting to the "embrace" part, and not planning on reaching "extinguish"
I can understand the tendency towards cynicism, but in this case it's probably misplaced.
It won't matter what anyone else does with the code or protocol after that, any more than attempts to compete against Google, Twitter or any of the browser makers matter now. The big players will simply take what they want and make it theirs, or else destroy it at their leisure, the way they did with the web, javascript and any number of ostensibly free and open platforms and protocols.
Open platforms and protocols are incredibly powerful and resistance to balkanization. Heck, I find it really ironic you mention "the web, javascript and any number of ostensibly free and open platforms and protocols" as examples of things that companies supposedly made theirs or destroyed, given the web itself is more open and standardized than it every was. If anything, Microsoft's failure to push proprietary solutions/extensions into the web (HTML extensions, JScript, ActiveX, Silverlight, etc) is a great example of how resilient the web truly is.
Yes, they're used as a substrate for building walled garden services, but how do you interact with those services? Using open protocols implemented by interoperable clients and servers.
Regardless, I'm not sure what your point is. Email is still very much an open ecosystem with plenty of interoperability and competition. I myself use a custom domain with a hosted email service that isn't being run by Google or Microsoft (I opted for mailbox.org).
The spam problem means that it can be tough to ensure your server is being treated as a member in good standing--you need to implement things like SPF/DKIM, you need to ensure you don't land on any blackhole lists, etc--but so long as you do those things, you system will absolutely interoperate with any others.
There may be open standards, but Google and MS only want to interoperate with other big players. They don't want to bother with small fry.
And the whole point is that if you don't agree with how an instance is being run or moderated, you can migrate to a different instance or stand up your own.
Now, it is notable that a lot of the fediverse is concentrated in certain large instances (e.g. mastodon.social). Bu that kind of concentration is not itself an evil so long as people have the freedom to move around. Closed off, walled gardens are the problem.
Regardless, which is better: A federation where, yeah, there might be a bit of drama over who blocks whom, but each instance can set its own policy? Or a single private entity controlling the entire platform?
You cannot solve the problem you're highlighting with technology. What you're describing is the human consequences of people exercising their freedom of association.
But what you can do is place that freedom in the hands of the community, and I struggle to see how that is anything but a definite improvement over the current status quo.
For example, people generally don’t care about data ownership, and that’s one of the main reasons Mastodon is designed the way it is, and causes to problems it does.
No, it hasn't. Where did you get this misinformation? That flawed Guardian article that only covered a small period in December when the entire web was less active?
Even if you believe their flawed numbers, Mastodon has over a 70% retention rate, which is fantastic (2M MAU down from 2.8M, though, again, their analysis is deeply flawed for a number of reasons). Way back in the early days of Twitter, the media was claiming their retention rate was a mere 15%.
> people generally don’t care about data ownership, and that’s one of the main reasons Mastodon is designed the way it is
No, it isn't.
The main reason Mastodon is designed the way it is is to ensure no one entity controls the platform, therefore preventing any one single person from censoring or promoting a specific agenda.
That's a huge problem for many people, in particular the many journalists Elon banned from Twitter and never reinstated.
As for Mastodon's numbers, you can check for yourself, and it isn't good[0]. December 12th has 2,163,975 active users for a total of 5,474,864 Mastodon accounts, and on January 12th, Mastodon has 1,731,986 active users for a total of 5,940,022 people who created an account. That’s a 20% decrease in active users in a month.
That's objectively bad, and it's unsurprising. It can't scale, and solves problems most people don't care about.
Mastodon is not the future.
LOL. 80% retention is bad, now.
I cannot think of a more comically skewed view.
Most tech startups would absolutely cheer at an 80% retention rate.
I'm done with this conversation. I don't personally understand your motivations for wanting to undermine Mastodon, but it's obvious you're engaging in (bad) spin to push a preconceived narrative.
But according to you, disliking Mastodon as a Twitter replacement can only be possible if I'm trying to execute some kind of psyops against Hacker News. I can't just dislike the idea of decentralization to enable hate groups or a technology that hasn't risen to the demands of its new users. It has to be some kind of vast conspiracy, some kind of manipulation, for someone to disagree with your point of view...
Get a grip. I backed my statement up with facts, and you respond with conspiracy. I think that makes my point all the stronger.