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 wikipedia.org

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

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 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