Well, people like to think that the fediverse is a genuine threat to Meta. And they like to feel they're doing important work defending it from Meta. So this will indeed pop up again, and again, and again.

[–] MudMan@kbin.social 12 points 11 months ago

They do? I mean, a few times I did have to point out that Meta has multiple products breaking 2 billion active users, so the "fediverse" is a drop in the ocean, but not many people seem to stick with that argument after a quick bout of googling.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I mean I think it will be if they really to end up federating. Why sign up for an ad-ridden data-hoarding service when you can use services that don't have that nonsense but still allows you to do all the things you want to do on social media?

[–] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Do you REALLY think that will be their end game?

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I don't know what their endgame is. Maybe you have some better perspective than me?

Do you REALLY think they're dedicating company resources to squash an entire network that comprises like .001% of market share?

I think most likely the "endgame" is to avoid legal regulation. Something they can point to and say that they have valid competition, and that they're actively supporting that competition. Which is great.

[–] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Why can't it be both? It's useful now for that reason and if it does grow they are in a position to kill it or absorb it.