That's right, as the article says
And from the perspective of the "free fediverse" that's not welcoming Meta, the new positioning that ActivityPub integration is "a long way out" is encouraging. OK, it's not as good as "when hell freezes over," but it's a heckuva lot better than "soon."
Should the Fediverse welcome its new surveillance-capitalism overlords? Opinions differ! has plenty of perspectives from both sides.
That just shows how little Eugen understands the privacy risks. Why just blocking Meta's Threads won't be enough to protect your privacy once they join the fediverse has an example of how federating with Meta can expose private data. And, data can be public but hard to discover (a profile for somebody who only makes followers-only and local-only posts); federating with Threads adds exposure.
I think we're in violent agreement here: getting the EU to drop their objections is certainly one way around them! So yeah, they'll probably try to use the demand for Threads to push back on the DMA's anti-trust-ish provisions (which as I understand is the current blockage). And then they'll try to use their ActivityPub integration to push back on the interoperability requirements, no doubt characterizing them as unrealistic. It's predictable but still irritating.
Not at all. I talked about this in In chaos there is opportunity! Meta's potential arrival is a likely to be a good thing for the fediverse no matter whether or not they actually go forward with it.
Yes, I certainly constructed the sentence to highlight the different reactions. Later in the article I say "And by prioritizing their desire to be embraced by Meta over queer and trans people's safety, Meta's cis advocates undercut their claims to be allies in ways that may be hard to recover from" -- which is true no matter what Meta does or doesn't wind up doing with Threads. Of course it's not the only thing going on, but I think it's important enough that it's worth highlighting.
Yep. Federation could conceivably respond to the EU's requirement for interoperability -- and they could do it in a way that puts a lot of barriers to people actually moving, so works well for them. Of course the EU would say that didn't meet the requirement, which would lead to a multi-year legal battle and eventually Meta would probably pay a billion dollar fine (as they routinely do -- it's just a cost of doing business) and promise to remove the barriers (which they wouldn't, and then there would be another multi-year legal battle).
But none of that works if the EU won't allow Threads for some other reason!
Still, my guess is that they'll figure out a way around the EU's objections to Threads ... we shall see ...
Why is it stupid? The article isn't setting up the tension, it's describing the tension that exists.
Not sure about the hashtags, good question. There will also be separate posts on Mastodon -- here's an early example, guaging awareness -- and it'll be interesting to see what gets traction where
Very good point, thanks much!
That's incorrect. Followers-only posts (and local-only posts on instances that have them) aren't public. Profiles that don't make public and unlisted posts aren't discoverable. And, as Threat modeling Meta, the fediverse, and privacy discusses, there are plenty of things that could be done to reduce the amount of data that's public.
Also, that's only one of the many reasons people oppose federating with Meta.