Re: Congratulations!

út 26. 12. 2023 v 20:16 odesílatel Dmitri Zagidulin <dzagidulin@gmail.com>
napsal:

> 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.
>

Dmitri, please be respectful.  I'd encourage you not to refer to members as
"patronizing".

But best results are obtained in standards by operating in good faith.


>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>