I think Google or Microsoft (!!) would be more likely to participate in ActivityPub stuff at this point, because they're more nervous about not having really a big inroads in the social networking scene these days afaict, and maybe AP could help them
@cwebber @alcinnz @datatitian Unless Facebook, Twitter, and Google change their core business models, their adoption of ActivityPub would be for one of two purposes: either (a) embrace and extend (with proprietary extensions. e.g., Google: AOSP and Google Play Services) or (b) PR.
What excites me about ActivityPub is the potential it holds for independent alternatives to Google, Facebook, and Twitter to emerge with completely different business models (including, eg., commons-funded & coop).
@aral @cwebber @alcinnz @datatitian I would be greatly concerned about corporations' penchant for cooption as a tactic to eliminate any kind of existential threat. I think our desire for independence would be incompatible with their presence. Also from a standpoint of if Twitter say, made an ActivityPub instance, they would have no moral or ethical principles to run it well, and I wouldn't let my instance federate with it much like I don't let it federate with a fascist cesspool instance.
@dzuk @aral @cwebber @alcinnz
Trying to loop everyone back in and be more clear post coffee.
My point is not that FB, burb, IG, et c. would actually change their ways, but that the availability of an open standard will, in time, expose them as not websites that help people connect outwards but websites that aim to trap people in. In a word: antisocial
For that, I am grateful for Christopher's incredible work
@datatitian @aral @cwebber @alcinnz @rysiek @jbond I understand that perspective, but I don't think so. Corporations (especially large ones) have a lot of resources invested in manipulating public opinion (in other words; PR) and any open protocol they use will simply be a functional or PR move to serve ulterior motives. It's like Android claiming to be open source.