Just some IT guy
You agree that tagging the username of a mod (wasn’t even one it was an admin) is doxxing? If so, you’re delusional.
Mod names are visible by default on my instance so if taking a look there and then mentioning the username you see there is doxxing good luck with the rest of your life. You can’t have a system where everyone can easily find out who performed a mod action and then claim you were “doxxed”
To quote the reason why calling out mods by name is forbidden from a previous encounter I had with them: “removed for doxxing”
So yeah I think you’re giving them too much credit here
> make a new messenger using a niche protocol > new users choose your messenger because it is objectively the best after you dumped unreasonable amounts of cash into it > userbase grows, in large parts because the small messenger is interoperable so you can say “hey, if other company wanted to they could just implement [protocol] for you, we are already doing that” > once userbase reaches critical mass, pull the plug on the protocol > users with long chat histories and contact books are now more or less stuck on your platform whether they like it or not because getting people to switch suddenly means two messengers instead of one for them, not a good proposition to make.
XMPP did take off while it was in Messenger, Facebook decided to kill it with its superior reach because it was a step-ladder rather than something actually useful to them. Facebook will absolutely use the Mastodon interoperability as a marketing trick “Hey guys, if you have friends that don’t like threads they can use another platform and still talk with you”. They’ll use it to distinguish threads from twitter until they feel like they don’t need it anymore. Then they’ll find some sort of technical excuse and pull the plug on ActivityPub support.
Can confirm, my mail server does just about everything I found it needs to do to not get flagged spam. And it doesn’t except for Gmail. Not even Microsoft has “Spam” filters that strict beyond checking the basic records.
On the browsers, I think in large parts Google should have never been allowed to push for their own Browser in their own products simply because the have monopolies in so many of them. Free market this and that, IRL it doesn’t work without some regulations and imo (American) Tech companies have been allowed too much freedom to abuse the market whichever way they like.
If they are having instance owners sign NDA’s they must have pre-selected who to talk to or only target Mastodon because feddit.de just pre-emptively defederated threads.net after users made the owner aware of the news and it’s one of the largest instances (even more so if you go by MAU which is arguably what Meta would be intersted in).
The way I see it have them show through actions that they won’t EEE for a good few years with whoever is willing to risk it. If they don’t show any signs of EEE then, I might reconsider my stance on federation with them. Until then I’ll keep threads.net on the blocked list of my instance.
well in this particular case it wouldn’t have mattered, I used the username but the admin in question has their clear name set as the display name (which made the whole “doxxing” claim even funnier to me)