Re: Congratulations!

So, several thoughts.
One, with co-chair hat on:

This is not how we roll, here at SWICG. Just throwing out a quote (like
"Embrace, extend, extinguish") by itself, with no other detail or
discussion, is not acceptable.
It may or may not be an insult, but it's an example of lazy behavior and
knee-jerk reaction.

Now, if the original poster said something like "I fear that this initial
effort to interop is a part of a larger strategy to ___. Here are the
specific threats, here's what we should watch for. Here's what we can do to
prepare." Or even "the instance that I run will proactively de-federate any
large mainstream company with a prior record of missteps in the social
media space". Or just _anything_ useful or productive or personal. Just
throwing out a quote though? Lazy, and patronizing at best. We're all
pretty vigilant around here.

Yes, of course, all tech is political. But let's not forget what our
political thesis is, here in a standards group.
It is "We believe in standards and interop" around here. Yes, even when it
comes to giant powerful entities and companies.
If you don't believe in the benefit of standards, what are you doing here
on this mailing list? Honest question, not rhetorical.

Let me say it again: "WE BELIEVE THAT STANDARDS AND INTEROP ARE VALUABLE",
in and of themselves. Yes, of course intentions matter, business models
matter, strategy matters, etc etc. But without interop and standards, none
of those are useful in the least. And conversely, interop and portability,
just by itself, _forces_ certain ethical invariants, that are strictly
better than the alternative.

Chair hat off, just personal Dmitri thoughts:

Sean, Bengo, Hellekin -- stop it. We're better than this. ("We" as in the
libre software and open standards community.)
Game theory wise, we KNOW what the optimal strategy is. It has formal
proofs, and evidence from the Cold War. It's "tit-for-tat".
We START by cooperating, by assuming good faith. And IF an actor does
something we feel hurts the community, THEN we react accordingly.

Big players implementing our specs? This is what we want, this is what
we've been fighting for. Our specs are robust enough to result in good
behavior and cooperation. You don't think they are?? Then SPEAK UP, let's
hear some concrete concerns and suggestions. Let's see some PRs.
Just throwing out "embrace, extend, extinguish" though? No. We know.
Thanks. We _also_ remember to tie our shoes, and brush our teeth in the
morning.

Anyways. We have a lot of work to do. But I, personally, want the bar of
participation, on this mailing list, to be higher than just truisms.

Dmitri







On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 2:27 PM ben@bengo.co <ben@bengo.co> wrote:

> I agree it’s not an insult too, and almost replied immediately as such,
> but decided not to at the time.
>
> For the record, the origin of “embrace, extend, extinguish” is a quote
> from the United Stages Dept of Justice wrt Microsoft employees
> anticompetitive behavior in the 90s in the realm of standards and
> multimedia/hypermedia.
> Embrace, extend, and extinguish
> <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish>
> wikipedia.org
> <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish>
> [image: wikipedia.png]
> <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish>
> <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish>
>
> It is EXTREMELY relevant here without being an insult.
>
> Especially from someone who worked at MS around the time period of the DOJ
> investigation,
> (Conscious or not),
> portraying the mere quote it as an insult seemed to me like an example of
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playing_the_victim
> <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playing_the_victim#:~:text=Manipulators%20often%20play%20the%20victim,thereby%20get%20something%20from%20someone.>
>
> Let me respectfully disagree with Evan. The behavior of quoting the US DOJ
> “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” at relevant times (pretty much always in a
> standards group) *is acceptable*. How Sean did it was not objectively an
> insult, annd instead occurred to me and others as a useful contribution,
> especially from a someone coming from Yale Privacy Lab. Anticompetitive
> behavior is often bad for end-user privacy and safety especially if
> marginalized groups.
>
> Finally, since Evan invoked CEPC, I want to point out that the CEPC
> specifically talks about insulting specific persons, and that’s not at all
> what happened here. Previously another member had floated some CEPC threats
> to get their way, and I recall nighpool saying that was not helpful and
> CEPC concerns are best handled directly with the Chair so as not to silence
> legitimate discussion and constructive disagreement. Evan, please keep that
> in mind next time you invoke “CEPC”.
>
> (sent while mobile)
>
> On Dec 21, 2023, at 12:43 PM, Jon Pincus <jon@achangeiscoming.net> wrote:
>
> 
> 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
>
>
>
>