Theory: the only reason Meta cares about the fediverse / ActivityPub is so that threads isn't labeled a "gatekeeper" under the EU's new "Digital Markets Act"
Links to source articles below.
Yesterday 30 million users signed up for threads, which is already more than active users in the fediverse.
Furthermore, it seems that Meta hasn't launched threads in the EU due to uncertainty regarding the Digital Markets Act. It is entirely possible that their intent to federate with other Activitypub instances is entirely a cheap way to avoid being labeled a gatekeeper and avoid other regulatory requirements or restrictions.
It's future use of ActivityPub to get better publicity or scrape a bit more data might be an added benefit but not it's true purpose.
We'll see if launch in the EU goes hand in hand with them turning on Federation. I suspect that ActivityPub and the Fediverse are merely an afterthought to them and a convenient way to avoid being impacted by certain regulations.
Edit: Found a brief overview of the DMA. Among other things they say:
"The DMA aims to ensure the interoperability of messaging services allowing users on services like WhatsApp to send messages to users on smaller services like Signal"
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_6423
Yea, might be right. Doesn't really change anything though. We're still basically fighting for an independent Fediverse. Fucking over Zuck is just a side-benefit.
How is Zuck being fucked over?
In a perfect world, he doesn't get enough federation to pass the sniff test and release his product in the EU. In a fantasy world, we eventually become big enough to actually start pulling his customers away, in a way that reduces his revenues. Which we have to be separate in order to do, because otherwise he doesn't lose them when they leave.
I would imagine being open to federation is all that's required for the EU.
Also, defederation doesn't mean they can't access federated data. They can even interact with it. It just doesn't get synced back to the original instances.
Unless Fediverse servers block Meta's servers IPs. That would be hilarious, considering how Meta and other shitty corpos blocks access from Tor and limits everything without login.
"Open internet? What open internet?"
We'll see.
Correct, which would dramatically reduce its value for marketing purposes, as federated instance owners get a constant stream of far more than can be viewed publicly.
I don't trust them one bit, but this makes more sense than EEE. The fediverse just isn't that big. We don't have anything they want. But what they do want is to be allowed to launch Threads in the EU without DMA issues.
That definitely makes sense.
Also, Zuck can point to us feddies not wanting to federate with him, and say "see? Interoperability is pointless, even the geeks don't want it". Which is oddly accurate...
I think the easiest counter-argument here is healthy disagreement.
Being exposed to multiple opinions is undoubtedly important and is far, far better for us all in the long run than only limiting ourselves to only those opinions and views we already share or at least like, but having an option to wall somebody off on an Internet platform has its benefits, too, like not actually wasting your time in endless and fruitless arguments. As great as it would for everyone to be able to have a healthy and productive conversation about the differences in their views, it simply isn't wise to honestly expect that from everyone.
Besides, having two opposing ideas communicate on the same platform is not what the fediverse is for - not exclusively for sure. It's the freedom to self-host and self-regulate places dedicated to specific things to various degrees: lemmy.world, for instance, is wide and large and encompasses many things at once, and has an option to federate and communicate with smaller, more niche communities and vise versa, while letting the users open a single account with either.
Otherwise it's just the old Facebook formula of encouraging opposing views to constantly clash for the sake of engagement. That's just not real, not healthy, and only exists for the purpose of being some sort of KPI in a corporation perpetually hungry for money and influence. So yeah, we don't want that.
I think you are right.
Doesn't this mean the law is working as intended?
I guess IF the fediverse decided universally not to fed and moved the code away from threads adding features say meta did not want, then they would be seen as de-facto gatekeeper again.
If fediverse universally decides, its democracy vs single company no?
Not really. Each instance gets to decide for themselves wether or not to defederate. It is an active choice that has to be made for those which federation is on by default.
My be they see the idea of a federated internet a threat to their whole business plan, where they have no control. So I believe their plan is to undermine it somehow 👽
Scumbag company avoids regulation with underhanded tactics, by just following the regulations as intended...
Or... to prevent being accused of duplicating Twitter. Being a Fediverse instance gives Meta some cover:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jul/06/twitter-meta-lawsuit-threads-app-musk-zuckerberg
Can someone confirm this is even right? I have friends in the EU with accounts and following me. Not to mention there’s EU companies in there, like the ESA and Ryanair.
Apparently you can use it if you just download the apk file from a third party mirror site, but it's not available via app stores.
Isn't Meta specifically not releasing Threads in EU due to privacy reasons? I don't think ActivityPub changes that.