How would they extinguish though? By proposing changes to the protocol that smaller instances can’t implement? At the moment if you didn’t want to be in Threads you just don’t have to be.
Google pulled this off with XMPP by having their Google Groups bridge be horribly maintained, feature incomplete, and randomly go down for days at a time. Most of the people on XMPP were on Google Groups so to them it just looked like the few people who actually hosted their own XMPP servers randomly went offline. It got to the point where people who used XMPP would have to create an account on Google Groups in order to reliably be able to talk to their friends. Google Groups users eventually came to the conclusion that it was XMPP that was unreliable.
Wait, did a big-name project that said they were going to implement ActivityPub actually implement ActivityPub?
Part of me wants to say props to them. Part of me can’t help but wonder if it’s part of a 90s-era Microsoft embrace-extend-extingush strategy.
That’s exactly it.
How would they extinguish though? By proposing changes to the protocol that smaller instances can’t implement? At the moment if you didn’t want to be in Threads you just don’t have to be.
Google pulled this off with XMPP by having their Google Groups bridge be horribly maintained, feature incomplete, and randomly go down for days at a time. Most of the people on XMPP were on Google Groups so to them it just looked like the few people who actually hosted their own XMPP servers randomly went offline. It got to the point where people who used XMPP would have to create an account on Google Groups in order to reliably be able to talk to their friends. Google Groups users eventually came to the conclusion that it was XMPP that was unreliable.
Fair, didn’t think about the “no u” strategy