I'm also worried that due to content moderation policies, Threads might choose to federate only with a few handpicked mastodon instances. Thus provoking a huge increase of users in these instances because they want to interact with people on threads and causing a centralisation issue, because people will start joining this instances far more than the others.

It would also render useless self hosting a single user instance for yourself.

Ah, yes that is a fair enough concern. Thanks. There are lessons in the fate of XMPP (and HTML with IE I guess?). However ActivityPub seems to have so much more momentum than XMPP ever had. This makes me more optimistic about Fedi.

Also, unlike with messaging which is much more dependent on a small number of people you interact with, I think microblogging is much more personal. If Threads would join, grow big, and then defederate 5 years later I may miss out on following some people but that still wouldn't make me leave Mastodon. I left Twitter after all.

Still, it's a reasonable and interesting concern.

Is it so much of a problem if the rest of the fediverse doesn't follow suit. Most of us and the original devs are here because we don't like mainstream social media and the direction it's going.

So sure threads can show up and start trying to call the shots, but I think if we only except them if what they do is in our best interest it will be fine as we can just break off again and do our own thing if they start trying to head the project in their own direction.

As I don't think most people on here care whether threads is part of the fediverse or not.

My point is they only have power if we go with what they want, and due to the open source nature of this just because they have money and a lot of employees doesn't mean they can take control.