@WeirdWriter @rysiek These two paragraphs struck me in particular:> Thatโs in stark contrast to, say, Google+, which despite corporate backing, incomparably larger budget, and being pushed down peopleโs throats through forced integration with YouTube, survived mere seven years, nine months, and a week.Because unfortunately Google probably doesn't see that as a problem. Or even as the Fedi winning. For them, longetivity doesn't matter, but peak user count.> And once it shut down, it shut down. A social network of millions just blipped out of existence one day. All those moments โ lost in time, like tears in rain.This, too, for them is a good thing. No-one else can profit from "their" data.This just makes it so crystal clear how the big one's interests aren't aligned with ours. Google+ wasn't really failing in their book, it had served its purpose and then ceased to do so. To us, this is loss. To Google this is just business.
