@matthew_d_green

and now #meta is trying to run into the #fediverse with #threads, and do to #mastodon what they did to #myspace in 2010. with the same tactics:

1. a public excited friendly face of #interop

2. drain of users

3. when the competitor is a dried husk, turn around and fanatically prevent any interop with #facebook on any level whatsoever

people need to understand what meta is

and have no illusions about what they have done, and what they will do

#adversarialinteroperability

@benroyce
I don't buy this narrative for the simple reason that I don't believe many people on Mastodon are going to move to Threads. The suspicion towards Meta is simply too big. I do expect people to move *to* Mastodon for this reason.

So why does Meta do it? My guess is that they're looking at how legislation, especially from the EU, is developing and they want to be in charge of a network that is compatible with that vision.
@matthew_d_green

@collectifission

To quote:

" - Economy: abolish the money economy and replace it by cybernetic communism, using labourtime as our measurement for planning."

Where does one even begin to critique such a statement?

And yet your thinking on Meta is clear and lucid and grounded in the real world and should be taken seriously?

Really?

And "Green Nuclear" itself

Well then...

cc @benroyce @matthew_d_green

@FinchHaven
I'm not sure how quoting part of my profile is related to my post where I give a brief overview of what I think Meta's business strategy is?

Yes, I think Meta is grounded in reality, capitalist reality of course, dealing with governments that have been annoyed with them for many years and are slowly moving in on them. Mastodon and the Fediverse at large is just their (cynical) attempt to stay ahead of the curve that, ironically, might create a better social network.
@benroyce