The feed in Threads is quite bad, but I’m pretty sure you can block an instance. I mainly follow content creators or follow updates and announcements for software I use.

Privacy was an example. People could migrate for any reason they want; whether it be due to the UI/UX of the app, the annoying IG integration, bad moderation, the algorithm, etc. Like with the case of people leaving Twitter and Reddit, but now you don’t lose content and there’s a lower barrier of entry.

They could take control of ActivityPub, but we can always create a fork of it if it does get to that point. We can manage without Meta anyway. And suppose Meta controls ActivityPub, it’s still better than the current system where content is locked in a single platform and controlled by solely 1 company.

Although fostering an open social network is not the intent of Meta, Threads indirectly benefits the concept of federation as a whole by contributing content and making it “mainstream”.

Threads is going to peel off users whether or not it federates with us. At least federating means that Threads users can easily switch to a more private Meta-less platform and still access content on Threads.

I think federating isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In the worst case Meta will remove ActivityPub from Threads in the future. Threads federating is an opportunity for regular people to see and understand the Fediverse, and we get to see the more mainstream influencers. If it turns out Threads has malicious intent, defederate and hopefully the backlash will get thread users to migrate to another federated instance.