Threads is pretty blatant about censorship and sharing of user data. They use terms like "a friendly space" and "convenient" to sell it to users. So you're actually losing something by jumping ship from Twitter. The one positive for Musk era Twitter was an attempt to reduce censorship, but the crazy things the company did otherwise far outweigh it.

One of the shitty things profit driven social media sites do is curate content to create a more advertiser friendly space. It even extends to special interests and government interests. I mean what do you call that when public information is curated by the government. I sure as hell don't want my US government telling me what I can and can not discuss in a public venue.

In the USA there's a little thing called the first amendment. Granted these are companies and don't necessarily have to adhere to civil rights in the same way government agencies do, but in effect they're doing the same thing. The US government should absolutely not be coercing these US companies into censoring content, which they are.

I think it makes entry into the EU easier, but they're receiving headwinds on two fronts there. There's no need for them to implement federation if they can't overcome the other regulatory hurdles first.

Nah, what would be the point of keeping Threads around then? They'd shut it down as soon as user numbers got too low. Same as what happened with G+

I think they may have realised that federating whilst they're still not allowed to operate in the EU would hand hundreds of millions of EU users to independent instances.

I’ll stop when capitalism and governments no longer exist.

(By government, I mean the institution of a group of rulers and attendant enforcement, used to compel others to do what they would otherwise not).

This is an incredible read on why Threads federating is bad news: https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html

A month isn't very long, they haven't even figured out their basic features - this was more a "maybe later this year" timeframe. It could be done quickly if they decided to start by reproducing mastodon and going from there, but building something that federates but is highly monetizable takes time - honestly they were probably pleased by the numbers and decided to go for monetization first

Making it clear they are unwelcome was the point though.

It seems they've put the idea on the back burner after we largely made our position clear, but it's not unlikely that they try to quietly federate down the road... Every time they think about it, we have to make them believe this would be more trouble than it's worth

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.

hi, anti-Meta person here: it's not about how many users we have. it's about Meta's long track record of insufficient moderation and harvesting of personal data. thanks to their almost nonexistent moderation, they've facilitated genocides, let deadly disinformation spread unchecked, and contributed to the rise of fascism. and they harvest enough data from their platforms to create digital duplicates of us, and if they join the Fediverse, of course they're going to harvest data from anyone federating with them too.

would you trust them to play nice in the Fediverse after all they've done?

Why is it stupid? The article isn't setting up the tension, it's describing the tension that exists.