I’m struggling to think of a reason that Meta is implementing ActivityPub protocol in Threads. There are a couple of possible reasons:
- access to an instant user base
- potential to influence a worrying rival
What I can’t figure out is how they intend to make money while allowing external instances access to the content? After all, any client could be used to strip out ads. It just doesn’t feel like it benefits Meta.
It leaves me a bit worried that they intend to divert the protocol in some way.
It’s a well founded worry.
Activitypub represents the lowest dev entry costs and as a bonus it comes with an audience. If Facebook is standing up a cheap competitor just to take advantage the barrier to entry is miniscule.
Given the trouble some users have noted deleting content (erasing also kills your Instagram account), it might also be a play to deprecate a duplicate platform under their control.
What I can’t figure out is how they intend to make money while allowing external instances access to the content?
They already have a significant amount of theoretical users since they’re allowing it to be used with an Instagram account, and they’re obviously not going to let users sign in to other instances using the official app. And frankly, the kind of user interested in using threads probably has near zero overlap with the people who would actually bother to join a different instance to browse content from threads.
Clearly just a strategic corporate move to take some younger users’ attention time away from the dumpster fires of Twitter and Reddit.
I will treat it the same way I do any of Meta’s platforms: ignore completely :-)
Edit: younger users, compared to Facebook’s avg user age
I also find it very unlikely that someone having issues with Twitter is going to find any more joy using “Twitter” by another name, by another giant tech company
