> This is a plan years in the making. I have a really hard time believing that. To me, Threads clearly looks like Meta scrambling to take advantage of the oppo

> This is a plan years in the making. I have a really hard time believing that. To me, Threads clearly looks like Meta scrambling to take advantage of the opportunity handed to them by Twitter's self-destruction. In every way, Threads has looked unripe, slapdash. If the "platform" was the point, then why did Threads ship without ActivityPub support? > Martin Reece, creator of Micro.blog It's Manton Reece. The author mostly lost me at the beginning, but here's where they totally lost me. > Mastodon has experienced server admins and nine million users that Meta can siphon after it fully invades the platform. Many Mastodon server admins are amateurs who are frankly not very qualified. I've had to perform two migrations (finally ending up at mastodon.social) because of incompetent and/or absentee server admins. I used and loved app.net, but app.net was actually forced to pivot from a Twitter clone (it was a very good clone, the best ever IMO) to a "platform provider" because not enough Twitter users were wiling to abandon Twitter for app.net, so it couldn't achieve critical mass. Ironically, app.net started with the subcription model that Twitter is now trying to adopt for itself (without much success AFAIK).