Because Threads didn't federate. It turns out when they said that they'll federate, they actually meant "some time in the undisclosed future." And then Threads lost a lot of that initial marketing hype so everyone forgot about it.

Apparently Meta is currently testing federation for Threads, though? The problem about Threads federating isn't resolved, to be entirely clear. It was merely that everyone, Meta included, just decided to kick the can down the road and think about the issue later.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (6 children)

Who knew a company with an unhealthy obsession with harvesting every screen tap of data from every person using their services... would chicken out from connecting their servers to a bunch of clients they couldn't monitor.

... That said, I actually didn't see this coming. It baffles me that I didn't, but I didn't.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago (2 children)

They didn't "chicken out", necessarily. It turns out that making huge social networks, and particularly for-profit ones, is not trivial. They connected a few accounts this week... but they also launched in the European Union this week, they weren't even out worldwide until now.

But hey, don't you worry, everybody is freaking out again. And if BlueSky ever finishes their own proprietary interoperability protocol and that is made AP-compatible on this end I'm sure we'll have another hipster breakdown.

[–] lapingvino 3 points 6 months ago

As far as I know there is no intention to have Bluesky be proprietary in any way in the long run, just the philosophy is different and closer to P2P networks. For example migration is a big element of the design, unlike Mastodon. But at the moment it's still being built, hence why it looks much more proprietary for now.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)