A lot of people have insisted #Meta isn't getting involved with the #Fediverse to embrace, extend and extinguish it...
... but even before fully implementing Fediverse interoperability in #Threads they're already talking openly about changing its protocols to add features like monetization. 🤔
And aware, no doubt, that quote posts are a divisive, hot-button issue, they're already building into #Threads not only quote post functionality but more refined controls for it than I know of anywhere in the #Fediverse — a feature bound to attract attention and make people consider choosing Threads in preference to other Fediverse software that doesn't offer the same functionality.
@tokyo_0 it seems like the quote post controls are probably something they've been coordinating with Mastodon, actually. I think it was @tchambers I saw say first that a very similar feature is coming for Mastodon and having followed the quote post discussions in the issue queues for Mastodon a bit I know these kinds of controls were extensively discussed there as a requirement for adding QPs in the past.
@vetehinen So, basically, both Threads and Mastodon are in it together? Which means, the rest of the fediverse software with quote-posts already, will be forced to implement the Threads+Mastodon method?
@youronlyone I don't think they can force the rest of fedi to implement controls on quotes. I do think it's a bad idea to control who can quote post no matter if it's Mastodon or Threads doing it (or even Misskey). But it's just going to be circumvented/ignored easily, like how Masto's "opt-in search" has no effect on Misskey's note search per user.
What fedi really should focus on is controlling replies. And while I have reservations on federating that control, I do believe it's important to give users the power to control how their posts look like in their own instances without having admin privileges. Because it's a (micro)blog.