Sorry, more #Threads talk.
I’ve realised there is another potential upside for Threads supporting #ActivityPub and federating. It gives Meta the ability to use different apps in different jurisdictions.
An EU compliant Threads could be a completely different app, but would federated with the original. Meta doesn’t need to compromise the creepiness of the original to move into the EU.
Places with strict censorship can get their own Meta localised apps. You’re “free” not to use them.
My [uninformed] impression is that this wouldn't get them out of having to comply more fully with EU regulations, which would be pretty concerned with the backend, not just the front.
Or to look at it a different way, whatever they could do with an ActivityPub Threads app they could do with a non-AP Threads app.
@volkris the point is that is has a different back end, but can connect to the original Threads. And with a standard protocol no less!
I just don't think the EU would easily accept such a loophole.
It sounds like Meta would be anticipating or even intending the client to use the alternative backend, and I imagine that's enough for EU regulators to call them out.
@volkris accept what? Meta making an eu-regulation compliant product that interfaced with Threads over a standard protocol? If they don’t allow that, then a lot of Mastodon servers are going to be in trouble!
Here's an example of a server operator worrying about EU compliance, just a post I saw today.
