3 ms·
for the same reason why not a federated <insert-the-tool-you-would-love-to-see-federated-here>
by igravious 8mo ago
for the same reason why not a federated <insert-the-tool-you-would-love-to-see-federated-here>
- amelius 8mo agoand, why is that?
- viraptor 8mo agoIt works in communities, not corporations. Every federation seems to die when enough millions are connected to it. Facebook used xmpp for chat. Google chat could federate too. Apple promised iMessage and then hid behind a silly excuse. It's extremely against company interests to federate.
- amelius 8mo agoI mean, it's not a hard requirement that you ask a company to build it.
- moomoo11 8mo agoever realized that its only incompetent people who could never build a product (what problem are you solving?) who ask for silly things like this? it doesn't work irl, and if you don't understand that then keep asking this question in 10 years, or even 100 years.
- haute_cuisine 8mo agoemail works, not everything has to be run by corporate greed
- moomoo11 8mo agoDo you use Gmail, outlook, etc? A provider backed by 1T+ worth companies? >99% of people do. Anything can be decentralized. But people will gravitate toward centralized solutions.
- fogzen 8mo agoThat has nothing to do with federation. A Gmail user can talk to an Outlook user. A Slack user cannot talk to a Teams user. Email is only federated because it was used before it was commercialized. If companies could monopolize email they would. The solution here is government regulation requiring interconnection, like we got with phones and text messaging.