This is what I don't get about the anti-Meta paranoia. Their worst case scenario is... exactly the same as we have now. They can't make every single instance hand them over their whole userbases, that's not how federation works.
I get why they don't like Meta, but I have friends who use Facebook and Instagram, and maybe it would be nice if they could get a taste of the Fediverse experience. We might end up gaining more than Meta.
I don't think isolationism is going to help the Fediverse thrive, or that there are no worthwhile users on Facebook platforms that could be persuaded to come this way if they get to see what it's like.
Having to deal with toxicity from that would suck, but it's not as if the Fediverse is this pure untainted land either. Worst comes to worst, instances can defederate them.
Absolutely true. The reason why so many games have cut down on standalonge games and player hosting options is that it allows them to control and sell microtransactions better. Who would buy skins if there's modding? Who would buy lootboxes if you can use a couple commands to have all the abilities and the best equipment in the game? They need to restrict player control so that only they can sell extras and power-ups.
Our ownership is undermined so that we can be fleeced on top of that.
The utter meaninglessness of "buying", or even worse, "gambling" for a single instance of an in-game item that is stored in a server we have no control over really appalls me. They managed to completely mix up the players' perception of value to the point they can't tell apart what is additional content from what is an insignificant fictional gameplay element. Say, producing infinite gold coins costs nothing for the developers.
Minecraft has both a single player mode and multiplayer which can be either hosted by the player themselves or by Microsoft. I wouldn't deny that Minecraft Realms, Microsoft's server subscription, is a service. But Minecraft, the game, has no reason to be considered a service.
Copies from before the Microsoft Launcher should still be yours just fine I assume.
Is a game even a service to begin with? The servers which provide online services to a game may be one, but why would the same apply to standalone instances of a software that you have purchased? At most I could see why this could mean they aren't obligated to continue offering updates, but not that it ought to allow them to take back the software they sold.
All of this is only happening because the law does not give a damn about customer rights anymore. It's entirely dishonest to visibly sell something and then turn around and say "we only sold 'access'". That's not what a sale means. Companies were simply allowed to redefine what purchases and ownership means, and they are trying to do the same even with devices you physically carry with you.
To be fair it kinda went away for a while during the beta and then it got added back years later.
Even the private server chats. That's [hecking] [doo-doo]
I remember when one single block of water source would flood the whole map if not contained by sponge blocks
This makes me a *happy camper*
Who knew, it turns running a platform full of hate isn't appealing to advertisers.
I also noticed Community Notes have become far more interested in nitpicking whatever vaguely leftist post they can find while letting blatant conspiracy theories and right-wing propaganda fly by unchecked.
How would they even extinguish a whole ecosystem of independent instances? What does that even look like?
They could very well make some feature or requirement and demand that every single ActivityPub instance uses their version to remain compatible...
...and instance hosts can just say no, fork it and keep going unbothered.
Even buying up some big Lemmies and Mastodons is not going to get them the whole Fediverse.