They will be the most anti-consumer, exploitative influence the law will allow
You’re right. They will. But there’s nothing they can influence. Laws be damned. No one owns ActivityPub.
there’s no good argument for going along willingly, IMO.
Except the one where, you know, you can use the Fediverse as an actual social media outlet where your friends and family are, public figures and all that, without subjecting yourself to ads and spying. I think that’s a pretty good one.
Oh and all of your friends and family can do the same, if they so choose.
Only if someone allows them to. ActivityPub exists to spite Meta, so I’d be very surprised if anyone allowed to them have any sort of negative influence.
You’re right. They will. But there’s nothing they can influence. Laws be damned. No one owns ActivityPub.
Except the one where, you know, you can use the Fediverse as an actual social media outlet where your friends and family are, public figures and all that, without subjecting yourself to ads and spying. I think that’s a pretty good one.
Oh and all of your friends and family can do the same, if they so choose.
No, but they can become the biggest, most influential voice in how it contimues to develop.
The methods of regulatory capture work well beyond regulatory bodies.
Only if someone allows them to. ActivityPub exists to spite Meta, so I’d be very surprised if anyone allowed to them have any sort of negative influence.
I thought you were actually curious. We can agree to disagree.
I was curious if you had an explanation I hadn’t heard before.
Did you?Edit: Were you?
Did I what?
My fingers didn’t type what my brain was thinking, sorry. I can see how that makes no sense.
What stops them from doing so today?