- As others have pointed out, how does shutting them out completely stay in keeping with fediverse principles? This is legitimate question since, to me, it seems like despite the risks, it’s antithetical to the spirit of the fediverse until they demonstrate bad behavior here.
how much bad behavior do you want to see before accepting that MetaZuck is evil and has no go intentions?
There’s a literal trail of dead startups and bodies.
It’s not that they might do something better.
It’s that they have a history of encouraging the competition to adopt an open standard (to gain the active users), and then purposely scuttling the standard in order to sink the competition (and leave the users with no functioning alternative).
this was an excellent article. I’m old enough to remember being impacted by these events.
I’m not in Munich, but I remember trying to embrace OpenOffice, and telling my wife how pissed off I was that Microsoft wasn’t following it’s own open source document standard.
I remember Google killing XMPP, and there’s also the more recent examples of what Facebook has done to WhatApp, Instagram, and the other potential competitors that got buried.
well shoot. this sums it up so well, there’s nothing to add.
The definition of “reasonable ads” and “just a few ads” keeps sliding. I’m old enough to remember the early internet, and that this lie has been told many times.
Just a few acceptable ads always becomes many unacceptable ads, because money.
By this logic, it only takes one bad apple to spoil the name of a group, but that bad apple isn’t necessarily representative of or indicative of the whole group.
sure, we could argue about who’s bad apples are more rotten, but what’s the point? humans are fallen and imperfect, so it’s no surprise that groups of humans are also imperfect.
I guess the next question to ask, is the group defined by the actions of it’s bad apples, or by the principles it claims to stand for?
also depends on the religion.
oof, this comic hurts so bad it’s funny.
this is the primary (official) reason why most banking apps require an unrooted device, and check that the bootloader hasn’t been tampered with. they don’t really care what you do with your phone, but a custom ROM doesn’t have to comply with the usual official checks and balances, and so theoretically could be malicious.
the bank “trusts” the official OEM rom, because the OEM rom belongs to a company that can be “controlled”. ie. pressured into ensuring apps are safe, etc.
the bank doesn’t trust the open source rom, because it isn’t “owned” by an entity that can be controlled.
a reason lots of companies don’t like open source, is because"who do you sue when something goes wrong?". closed source isn’t any safer, but at least you know who to sue when it breaks.