Why Mozilla is betting on a decentralized social networking future | TechCrunch
techcrunch.com
Consumers are hungry for a new way of social networking, where trust and safety are paramount and power isn't centralized with a Big Tech CEO in charge...

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/7456748

The mission-driven tech company behind the Firefox browser, Pocket reader and other apps is now investing its energy into the so-called “fediverse” — a collection of decentralized social networking applications, like Mastodon, that communicate with one another over the ActivityPub protocol.

  • Wooster@startrek.websiteEnglish
    0·
    1 year ago

    I just read the entire article and I don’t see why Mozilla really wants in on the Fediverse. It covers a lot of how it wants in, but not the driving motivation.

    My best guess is they want to be the next Facebook/Twitter. They see a window and think it’s not something to miss.

    Never forget: “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish”, even if it’s from a relatively liked company like Mozilla.

    • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
      2·
      1 year ago

      At least as Mozilla exists now, I think it would be much harder for it to become “enshitified”.

      Preface: IANAL, just going off my best understanding.

      The Mozilla Corporation is actually wholly owned by the Mozilla Foundation, a non-profit. Profits that the corporation generates are the property of the Foundation, which falls under all the usual restrictions for spending and reporting that 501.c.3 orgs have. So at least as they exist now, Mozilla’s profits cannot be used to enrich executives or investors, which is the driving motivation behind the enshitification cycle.

    • Kaldo@kbin.social
      1·
      1 year ago

      I am a bit cynical about it as well, but on the other hand mozilla’s entire shtick and what’s keeping them alive is their privacy oriented, anti-google approach. If they enter the fediverse they’d probably stick to these principles since they are the only reason why you’d want to go with them over the competitors in the first place, right? So it could be a good thing maybe.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        0·
        1 year ago

        Success might eventually breed a monster but let’s cross that bridge when we come to it like we are doing with Google and FB etc. by seeking alternatives.

        Plus, I’m not sure a monster in the fediverse is nearly as bad a thing when you can easily jump to a different provider.

        • flashgnash@lemm.ee
          1·
          1 year ago

          I think the problem there is that if the fediverse were to be adopted by the masses the general population wouldn’t pay attention/wouldn’t even care and just use whatever instance was most convenient for them, and if an insurance has a large proportion of users it inherently has power over the entire network

          If meta entered properly like everyone thought they might, they could massively control the entire fediverse by threatening defederation with instances that don’t comply with their rules. Because they have so many users and generate so much content no instance wants to be cut off

          That example probably wouldn’t work for the fediverse as it stands right now as we’re pretty much all nerds, dislike companies like meta and probably wouldn’t enjoy the content generated by its users anyway but it stands as an example

          • MagicShel@programming.dev
            1·
            1 year ago

            My “secret” is I’m fine defederating with fb or any other larger player because nerds are all I really want to socialize with anyway. Those of us here would lose nothing by fb joining and defederating.

            • flashgnash@lemm.ee
              2·
              1 year ago

              I get that, that was the whole point of that comment is the likes of us wouldn’t want to interact with Facebook but as I said that’s just an example.

              Imagine the chaos if Reddit implemented activitypub, or discord with their threads feature, or even just a new instance like world that snaps up a lot of users for one reason or another, plays it safe for a while and acts benign until they’ve got the bulk of the users and then starts imposing their rules on other instances

    • ripcord@kbin.social
      1·
      1 year ago

      Never forget: “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish”

      It’s interesting you picked that, since the origins of that phrase is why Mozilla was even founded. And why they worked so damn hard for so many years on web standards.

    • plenary_delusion@feddit.nl
      1·
      1 year ago

      I doubt they want to be a big instance — in the end, they simply don’t have the resources for it.

      If anything, I imagine this “investment” is simply a part of their bigger market positioning as “privacy provider”, along with Mozilla VPN and their email service.

      Which might be somewhat profitable for them but I’d say it’s also good for the consumers — they at least become aware of the product.