• helenslunch@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    It “still exists” but user adoption is basically zero, which is the opposite goal of open standards.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      User adoption here is also “basically zero.”

      Lemmy is a rounding error in population versus larger sites. It’s a walled garden.

      You cannot weaken the fediverse more than the near-total lack of adoption that already exists.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        User adoption here is also “basically zero.”

        Yes and there are a variety of reasons why it is that way, none of which includes being picked up by a megacorp for profit and then being dumped later after they’ve extracted all the value from it.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Assuming it is picked up and dropped, the fediverse is completely unchanged. That’s my point.

          • 0x1C3B00DA@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            exactly! The end result of EEE is basically the state we’re already in. I also don’t believe that’s what Meta intends. Despite how a lot of ppl here feel about it, the fediverse isn’t worth the effort of EEE. I think its more likely that Meta knows it’s on its last leg and is looking for something to latch on to (see also: their failed metaverse initiative). And the EU’s recent regulatory drive probably makes the fediverse look even more useful for Meta to attach itself to