Interesting article on decentralised social media:
Good to see recognition of the funding by @EC_NGI and of course nice to be quoted by the kind folks at Forbes. Now all we need is for them to join the Fediverse ;)
He he, yes it is true. Yet as others have remarked, they have a peculiar way of describing the #Fediverse:
> An estimated 4 million more use the largest social protcol, Mastodon, which supports 60 niche social networks, with a rapidly growing pool of blockchain competitors in the works.
Forbes hot take on the fedi :D
The way the presentation of this information on the EU Mastodon projects was phrased is bizarre, vaguely slanderous.
There is an agenda behind this piece but I'm not sure what it is. I'm not convinced that Michael del Castillo of Forbes staff knows what it is either.
@keith @humanetech @NGIZero @EC_NGI the way that is written just feels rather off... the similarities between eu voice and truth social begin and end with being based off of mastodon and having ties to politics, they are otherwise entirely different with very different purposes
(truth social isn't even a part of the fediverse last i checked, it doesn't deserve any mention in an article about decentralised social media)
and yet they seem to insinuate that eu voice was created in relation to truth social?
really the whole section about mastodon in that article reeks of somebody who doesn't actually understand the fediverse, and honestly it feels like they are trying to downplay mastodon in favor of projects with more money behind them (which tbh is probably what their agenda is, they're interested in where the money is, and fedi is not where the money is)
Agree. Either intentional misdirection, or the most sloppy text-writing to just create some filler content.
As for where the money is, idk how corporate world looks upon the concepts behind fedi. Maybe they are starting to get a hunch of where the money could be, and this is part of the play to get it out.
There are the DSA/DMA regulations by EC that force consideration of interoperability. And there are 'hotshot' projects with big names behind them (Jack), etc
Trying hard to wrap my head around this one:
"If an SDO’s OSS project becomes fundamental to the way standards are implemented in the marketplace, the lack of participation from these innovators may (i) deprive the community of valuable contributions, and (ii) skew the resulting SDO-approved OSS implementation in a way that is no longer vendor neutral."
I wonder what counts as participation and contribution in the mind of the writer. Only €€€ ?
Indeed. This seems just like crazy to me. Total opposite of that seems to be the positive influence of basing the SDO's effort around an OSS core. Have transparency be at the heart of the standardization effort, and level playing field for anyone to contribute to that discussing in all openness.
These papers are sort of eye-opener for me, as for the kind of "substrate formation" that is needed for a healthy Fediverse.
Servidor experimental para I+D en Intranets.