Shared by @tchambers and originally written by @chipotle

With kbin’s microblogging integration I think this is particularly relevant for our community as well! It’s a great read please take the time to read the full post.

Relevant Paragraph:
"Look. At the end of the day, I’m a Mastodon partisan. But I don’t love its collective tendency toward self-important dogmatism…The truth is, #Threads is not about Mastodon. It’s about Meta and only about Meta, and Mastodon isn’t important enough to them to spend the considerable effort that would be necessary to destroy it.

It’d be awfully damn ironic if the Fediverse decides it’s become necessary to destroy itself to stop them."

  • ElectroVagrant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    So if Threads isn’t trying to overwhelm and destroy Mastodon, why have ActivityPub support at all? Two answers. First, “Look, see? We’re open!” is not only perceived as a great talking point these days, it’s perceived as a regulatory relief valve. Look, see? ActivityPub! We’re open!

    Second, remember that the business model for Threads is keeping you on Threads. If 95% of your friends are on Threads but 5% are over on that weird Mastodon thing, now you don’t have to use Mastodon to follow them! Just follow them from Threads! Woo! Will Threads be a good Mastodon client? No, but it just has to hit “good enough.”

    These are also great points to highlight imo. A throwaway defense against regulation and entrenchment by enabling access to the few friends that outright refuse to use their products both make more sense to me compared to some of the EEE arguments & data collection. I’d be more inclined to see Meta/Facebook doing the bare minimum with ActivityPub and using a strict allow list vs. open federation, but time will tell.