@willoremus thanks for the gift link! The article makes some good points -- and I really like your phrasing of Meta's "gesturing" at interoperability.
On the other hand, when you talk about Meta's strategy, it's worth highlighting how much benefit they're getting just from from gesturing. As @laurenshof of @fediversereport points out, they've mastered the art of using tiny incremental improvements in fediverse-related functionality to get positive press. Including this article!
So at least in the short term, while I agree with @Gargron that so far Threads is only dipping their toe in, what's their real incentive to do more? After all, Mastodon has less than a million users -- not that many more than before the Apartheid Clyde acquired Twitter two years ago. And while many white male fediverse influencers are very gung-ho about Meta, there are also a lot of people who don't want them here. So they're very wise to tread carefully. And while I'm rarely one to praise Meta on many fronts, I think their decision to make federation opt-in for Threads users was a great one. It's pretty funny, but also sad, that some of their supporters here have criticized that decision.
Still, Meta's clearly keeping their options open to do more than just gesturing. In Embrace, Extend, and Exploit: Meta's plan for ActivityPub, Mastodon and the Fediverse I talked about how they could try to use the Fediverse to help shape regulation and as a platform for decentralized surveillance capitalism ... time will tell.
In any case @Sarahp reported that Meta's one of the funders for the new @swf, so that's more evidence that they see it as useful to keep gesturing -- and I saw one of SWF's founders say that they'd make sure some of that money goes to Mastodon, so Meta still sees Mastodon as useful as well. It'll be interesting to see how things work out!
#fediverse #threads #fedipact @fediversenews