It is not an attack to simply express disagreement, and not everyone who disagrees is coming from a place of hostility.
The whole point of a forum is for healthy dialogue. You can’t just go around accusing everyone who disagrees with you as being abusive and disingenuous.
- As others have pointed out, how does shutting them out completely stay in keeping with fediverse principles? This is legitimate question since, to me, it seems like despite the risks, it’s antithetical to the spirit of the fediverse until they demonstrate bad behavior here.
how much bad behavior do you want to see before accepting that MetaZuck is evil and has no go intentions?
There’s a literal trail of dead startups and bodies.
It’s not that they might do something better.
It’s that they have a history of encouraging the competition to adopt an open standard (to gain the active users), and then purposely scuttling the standard in order to sink the competition (and leave the users with no functioning alternative).
this was an excellent article. I’m old enough to remember being impacted by these events.
I’m not in Munich, but I remember trying to embrace OpenOffice, and telling my wife how pissed off I was that Microsoft wasn’t following it’s own open source document standard.
I remember Google killing XMPP, and there’s also the more recent examples of what Facebook has done to WhatApp, Instagram, and the other potential competitors that got buried.
well shoot. this sums it up so well, there’s nothing to add.
The definition of “reasonable ads” and “just a few ads” keeps sliding. I’m old enough to remember the early internet, and that this lie has been told many times.
Just a few acceptable ads always becomes many unacceptable ads, because money.
also depends on the religion.
lol, that’s how rules get made