5 ms·

Why does a browser company need to own a social media space? I am an avid Firefox user but don't see any pragmatic point in this "exploration". Maybe they want

Why does a browser company need to own a social media space? I am an avid Firefox user but don't see any pragmatic point in this "exploration". Maybe they want to own their instance and therefore control their identity? That kind of makes sense—we might see more of that from individual businesses in the future. But this announcement is not about that.

culi 4y ago
> Why does a browser company need to own a social media space? Mozilla isn't a browser company, and did you read the post? All the examples cited where decentralized/federalized alternatives. They specifically DON'T wanna own anything
- fanso99 4y ago
  They literally say in the first sentence that they will run a public instance on Mozilla.Social. This means they will own that instance. You could argue that no one owns anything exclusively in today's federalized world but that is not true in practical terms. They will own the identities/social graphs/content created locally. "Own" meaning they have total control over that instance and can, for example, enforce Mozilla-friendly policies, remove content, ban users (without the ability to export one's identity and social graph).
  - culi 4y ago
    But Mastodon is specifically built against that. Users can freely migrate their accounts and all posts are still accessible on other instances (up to a point). The whole point of Mastodon is that users and their content have "exit". If Mozilla does some weird shit with their instance, people can just... use a different instance. That's kinda the point. And Mozilla's instance will surely take the Mastodon Server Covenant which, among other things, requires users be notified at least 3 months ahead of time before a server gets shut down
    - fanso99 4y ago
      You are misunderstanding federalization. People can migrate their account and social graph to a different instance _only_ if the current instance allows them to do that. If you are banned from Mozilla.social - you can't migrate. The instance owns you.
BlueTemplar 4y ago
While Mozilla is best known for Firefox, they already have a lot of experience in another software for a federated protocol : Thunderbird for e-mail. Are you seriously asking why they would be interested in the Fediverse ?? Were you questioning Opera (now Vivaldi) when they were experimenting with all those weird browser features ?
- quanticle 4y ago
  Are you *seriously* asking why they would be interested in the Fediverse ?? I think it's entirely valid to point out that for the last decade, Mozilla has been distracted with side projects that haven't gone anywhere (Firefox OS, Persona, etc), while the browser has languished. And now we see Mozilla pursuing yet another side project that, let's face it, will probably die an unmourned death in two or three years, while Firefox still languishes. Furthermore, given that Mozilla very recently had a round of layoffs, ostensibly to cut the fat and refocus on the browser, where are they going to get the developer resources to work on this new project?
  - wasmitnetzen 4y ago
    Imagine if Firefox OS would have gone somewhere. We would have an entirely open mobile OS right now, breaking up the duopoly of Google/Apple. I don't blame them for trying.
    - quanticle 4y ago
      I do. Imagine if Mozilla, instead of trying to make another mobile OS to challenge the Apple/Google duopoly, had focused on making Firefox a top-tier browser, both on desktop and mobile? We might be in a situation today where, certainly on Android, there would be more than one option for a mobile browser. We are rapidly regressing towards where the web was in 2002, only with Google Chrome taking the place of Internet Explorer. Could Mozilla have prevented this by focusing on Firefox? I don't know. What I do know is that they didn't even try.
      - 4y ago
nashashmi 4y ago
I don't see how twitter is essential to the browser space. I can see how a site like del.icio.us is essential or flickr is essential or OneDrive/GDrive is essential. But not twitter. This is nothing more than an open-source attempt at mastadon, and possible diversification for Mozilla. We can expect more open source diversification attempts in the future. BTW, where is an open source email service network? And open source identity service network? And open source password saver network?
- guerrilla 4y ago
  What are you talking about, Mastodon is open source... > BTW, where is an open source email service network? That's what most email that isnt run by Google and Microsoft has always been...
  - nashashmi 4y ago
    I think Mozilla intends to develop mastodon further by first becoming a major player. And I mean open source email server. Something like an alternative to an enhanced email server like ms exchange or even gmail.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      > And I mean open source email server. Something like an alternative to an enhanced email server like ms exchange or even gmail. Like I said, all of the other ones are open source.. There's dozens. This seems like you just don't know about them.
- syockit 4y ago
  E-mail has always been decentralized. But if you're looking for a feature-packed server/client, then maybe iRedMail and Roundcube will do? As for identity service, in its early years OAuth had many service providers. But then the providers don't bother to maintain the service so many sites also stopped using OAuth as login alternative due to unreliabiliy of the feature. For password saver, KeePass + (sync service of your choice) also works? (Personally, I don't use it)
hoseja 4y ago

culi 4y ago

> Why does a browser company need to own a social media space? Mozilla isn't a browser company, and did you read the post? All the examples cited where decentralized/federalized alternatives. They specifically DON'T wanna own anything

fanso99 4y ago
They literally say in the first sentence that they will run a public instance on Mozilla.Social. This means they will own that instance. You could argue that no one owns anything exclusively in today's federalized world but that is not true in practical terms. They will own the identities/social graphs/content created locally. "Own" meaning they have total control over that instance and can, for example, enforce Mozilla-friendly policies, remove content, ban users (without the ability to export one's identity and social graph).
- culi 4y ago
  But Mastodon is specifically built against that. Users can freely migrate their accounts and all posts are still accessible on other instances (up to a point). The whole point of Mastodon is that users and their content have "exit". If Mozilla does some weird shit with their instance, people can just... use a different instance. That's kinda the point. And Mozilla's instance will surely take the Mastodon Server Covenant which, among other things, requires users be notified at least 3 months ahead of time before a server gets shut down
  - fanso99 4y ago
    You are misunderstanding federalization. People can migrate their account and social graph to a different instance _only_ if the current instance allows them to do that. If you are banned from Mozilla.social - you can't migrate. The instance owns you.

BlueTemplar 4y ago

While Mozilla is best known for Firefox, they already have a lot of experience in another software for a federated protocol : Thunderbird for e-mail. Are you seriously asking why they would be interested in the Fediverse ?? Were you questioning Opera (now Vivaldi) when they were experimenting with all those weird browser features ?

quanticle 4y ago
Are you *seriously* asking why they would be interested in the Fediverse ?? I think it's entirely valid to point out that for the last decade, Mozilla has been distracted with side projects that haven't gone anywhere (Firefox OS, Persona, etc), while the browser has languished. And now we see Mozilla pursuing yet another side project that, let's face it, will probably die an unmourned death in two or three years, while Firefox still languishes. Furthermore, given that Mozilla very recently had a round of layoffs, ostensibly to cut the fat and refocus on the browser, where are they going to get the developer resources to work on this new project?
- wasmitnetzen 4y ago
  Imagine if Firefox OS would have gone somewhere. We would have an entirely open mobile OS right now, breaking up the duopoly of Google/Apple. I don't blame them for trying.
  - quanticle 4y ago
    I do. Imagine if Mozilla, instead of trying to make another mobile OS to challenge the Apple/Google duopoly, had focused on making Firefox a top-tier browser, both on desktop and mobile? We might be in a situation today where, certainly on Android, there would be more than one option for a mobile browser. We are rapidly regressing towards where the web was in 2002, only with Google Chrome taking the place of Internet Explorer. Could Mozilla have prevented this by focusing on Firefox? I don't know. What I do know is that they didn't even try.
    - 4y ago

nashashmi 4y ago

I don't see how twitter is essential to the browser space. I can see how a site like del.icio.us is essential or flickr is essential or OneDrive/GDrive is essential. But not twitter. This is nothing more than an open-source attempt at mastadon, and possible diversification for Mozilla. We can expect more open source diversification attempts in the future. BTW, where is an open source email service network? And open source identity service network? And open source password saver network?

guerrilla 4y ago
What are you talking about, Mastodon is open source... > BTW, where is an open source email service network? That's what most email that isnt run by Google and Microsoft has always been...
- nashashmi 4y ago
  I think Mozilla intends to develop mastodon further by first becoming a major player. And I mean open source email server. Something like an alternative to an enhanced email server like ms exchange or even gmail.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    > And I mean open source email server. Something like an alternative to an enhanced email server like ms exchange or even gmail. Like I said, all of the other ones are open source.. There's dozens. This seems like you just don't know about them.
syockit 4y ago
E-mail has always been decentralized. But if you're looking for a feature-packed server/client, then maybe iRedMail and Roundcube will do? As for identity service, in its early years OAuth had many service providers. But then the providers don't bother to maintain the service so many sites also stopped using OAuth as login alternative due to unreliabiliy of the feature. For password saver, KeePass + (sync service of your choice) also works? (Personally, I don't use it)

hoseja 4y ago