@mpoletiek “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.” – Karl Popper

are we talking about violence or technology choices individuals have available to them? Because all I'm saying is there are more than 2 choices when it comes to social media architectures.

@mpoletiek Are the two entirely separate?

good question. I for one do not equate words to violence. So I would say yes, but I understand a lot of people would disagree with me. My point is we're not stuck with this choice. It's not tolerance, it's a third way.

@peturdainn Resisting corporate takeover is not the same as killing itself. Quite the contrary.

@mastodonmigration Well, if half “our side” was ready to fall in line behind Silicon Valley and Big Tech they were not on “our side”, were they?

Facebook is so anathema to everything that federation and decentalisation stands for in principle that none of this should have to be said.

That's the point, though. Half of our side is not behind Silicon Valley and Big Tech. By and large most people here despise corporate social media and have come here to escape its predation. We are not going back, and we are not going to let them take over our Fediverse. There are few enemies here. Some might need to understand better how these demon's fight, their history and what we need to do to prepare for them. But we can do that. We can build an effective response. We have the power.

@mastodonmigration Right, so speaking out against Facebook/Meta/etc., is not “gunning down half our side” because half our side is not on the Facebook/Meta/Big Tech/Surveillance Capitalism bandwagon.

No one who isn’t in bed with Silicon Valley/Big Tech has reason to get upset about anything I’ve said.

Well that's good. Seems like a good place to leave it. Appreciate your spirit and perspectives on defending open systems and the Fediverse in particular.

@jbwharris You can’t stop them from adopting protocols, true.

That doesn’t mean you have to lay down a red carpet for them either.

Social pressure works.

The design of ActivityPub, Mastodon, etc., is compatible with how Big Tech scales. So there’s nothing technically stopping them from centralising/capturing it (in the same way the web, email, XMPP has been centralised and captured—so not entirely, of course—but for all intents and purposes insofar as the mainstream is concerned).

@jbwharris but they captured their respective markets because, at the time, they offered a more compelling product than what was currently available. That's not to say they didn't eventually leverage their positions, but search before Google was a chore.

I don't agree with the scorched earth policy — if people want openness to be the standard, they need to need to actually contribute to the projects. Meta doesn't need Mastodon, they already have the cash and audience.

@Catweazle Hmm, I hadn’t realised Vivaldi was owned by its employees. That’s definitely a huge plus. I just really wish they were also open source.

@aral, this is also an internal debate, but in the first line Vivaldi is OpenSource, but not in the "traditional" sense. The code is fully accessible and auditable, in the community they even teach how the user can modify it. It is not closed source, just that 5% of the script with respect to its UI is licensed as proprietary to prevent Google and MS from getting their hands on it, with which they would definitely monopolize the browser market.