I go further in my speculation. I think the opt-in requirement for Threads federation stands out as a signal of where Meta is going. I can't find the quote, but Mosseri has said that the opt-in requirement is to protect their users' privacy, security, and IP rights and defend against spam and abuse.

I call bullshit. Meta has always been crap (intentionally and unintentionally) at those things, even on their own fully-controlled platforms.

my belief is that the opt-in requirement is so that Meta can use their policy clout to ensure that we end up with a "closed open" regulatory regime like the phone networks: you *can* federate, and the system is "open" but so highly regulated "for safety" that only large corporations can even imagine doing so, and in practice the whole thing is run by duopolies or pseudo-cartels (e.g. in the US: Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T).

This would suit Meta just fine.

their opt-in requirement is so obviously bogus – if it were something that Meta's lawyers would insist on, then SMTP should also be subject to opt-in policies (sadly, in practice it almost is these days).

It will be a devastating outcome if online decentralization becomes subject to onerous federal / european-level regulatory baseline requirements in order to enter the market. I hope that the regulators see past this attempt at regulatory capture.

cc @pluralistic

@blaine @pluralistic they just want access to more behavioural data to feed their insatiable, #privacy destroying, #surveillanceBusinessModel

Someone should track Mark Zuckerberg in real life, 24/7, and see how HE likes it.

@patrickleavy @blaine
Zuckerberg bought four houses AROUND his house in Noe Valley to prevent neighbors from spying on him.

He bought most of an Hawai'ian island (using heirs' property auctions to force the sale of indigeonous owned land) and maintains a giant buffer zone to keep people from invading his privacy