Re: Congratulations!

I agree with hellekin. "Embrace, extend, extinguish" isn't an insult, 
it's a pithy description of well-known strategy for corporations to try 
to exploit open standards. What (if anything) the group developing the 
standards can do to reduce the risks of this happening to ActivityPub -- 
whether or not it's what Meta's intentionally trying to do here -- is a 
valid topic for a community group that's developing standards.

Also, even if it's not Meta's intent, it's still a potential outcome; in 
Embrace, Extend, and Exploit: Meta’s plan for ActivityPub, Mastodon and 
the fediverse 
<https://privacy.thenexus.today/embrace-extend-and-exploit/> I talk 
about how Mastodon EEE'ed OStatus even though they didn't start out 
trying to do that. As you can tell from the title, I don't think Meta's 
trying to EEE ... but others do, and it's still a risk even if it's not 
their goal, so it's not insulting the integrity of anybody working on 
the standards to say that they should discusswhat (if anything) to do in 
light of the concerns and risk.

jon

> On 12/16/23 06:54, Evan Prodromou wrote:
>> This list is for the W3C community group developing the standards for 
>> an open social web. We follow the Positive Work Environment rules of 
>> the W3C.
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/
>>
>> This remark is not acceptable. You're insulting our member from Meta; 
>> you're also insulting the integrity of everyone else working on the 
>> ActivityPub standards, here and elsewhere.
>>
>> In standards development, we collaborate on the specifications and 
>> compete on implementation. Rivalries stop at the door.
>>
>> Evan
>>
>> On 2023-12-15 1:33 p.m., O'Brien, Sean wrote:
>>> Embrace, extend, extinguish.
>>
>
> I'm sorry Evan, but I cannot see this statement as an insult. I read 
> it as a legitimate political concern that many share, and that follows 
> a consistent pattern that we've witnessed many times across various 
> successful internet protocols. Dismissing this concern as an insult is 
> not going to help address the problem.
>
> If this mailing list is not willing to discuss politics, the Fediverse 
> is. The SocialHub also welcomes political concerns.
>
> I think that your final sentence, as much as it may sound fair, is 
> politically immature, not to say entirely naive. The good company of 
> gentlemen never prevented power relations at play. This is probably 
> why there is a W3C sponsored list, and a grassroots movement. You 
> won't be able to silence the grassroots.
>
> Developers make their own choices when it comes to whom they want to 
> federate with, and maybe it's time to discuss what it means to live in 
> a digital world that is not unique and imposed from above by 
> self-appointed asymmetric powers. The rough consensus that brought the 
> running code powering ActivityPub today came from refusing the terms 
> of service of surveillance capitalists such as the main sponsors of 
> W3C, including Meta -- this is not an insult, simply a state of fact. 
> The fact such companies now embrace the standards mean the standards 
> did good so far to offer a solid alternative to their prying services: 
> it does not mean that we have solved the underlying political struggle 
> for freedom from interference for online communication.
>
> On the matter of interoperability, interconnection, and consent, 
> petites singularités published a short statement a couple of years 
> ago, in anticipation to this very moment.
>
> https://public.zoethical.org/pub/what-is-at-stake-with-interoperability
>
> ==
> hk
>
>