none of the major providers will deliver your email without your mail server having first built a reputation

There are definitely major, and easily-abusable “features” being implemented by the major email providers, but I don’t think your statement is correct. I have a Hetzner server, and I can receive email from it (to Gmail) just fine, as long as I have SPF, DMARC, and DKIM set up. I can also create a new server with a new IP and not have any issues. The issues may arise with shared IPs/ranges that are also being used by spammers. Otherwise, if you’re planning to send bulk email you just need to warm up the IP.

i think you may be mixing federated and small-web feel there. there exists the ability for individuals to have functioning email servers although it is difficult but fair considering how much of the world is reliant upon it and opposing it with various kinds of attacks. i dont thimk it requires many individuals to have their own servers for it to be considered federated, the fact that we have dozens of relatively big email providers to choose from who prioritize various different things is enough to cover the majority of peoples needs and i think that is the threshold requirement for a sufficient self sustaining federated network. regardless of that, if you compare this outcome of email as of present to lets just say a platform like discord whose goal is to facilitate messaging between people, you can evidently say thst emails outcome is better than the proprietary service that discord is locking people into and not making alternatives ways of accessing the service a simpler process.

Ah yes of course. Both Meta and Bluesky have far outrun any federated-short-blogging effort of the Fediverse, and as a result companies will rather want to monetize those. But this is also the paradoxical situation of people in here who both want “the Fediverse to succeed” and “keep corporate interests out of the Fediverse”: Either won’t happen.

Right now it looks more like this’ll remain a hyper-specialized place for specific discussions, Mastodon more so. You can go there for false dichotomies in regards to browser development feedback for example, or for dejected Youtube actual-content-creators getting yelled at for engaging with their community.

But it seems it’ll stay at that. However, this also keeps any monetary interest away from it, so that’s good. Of course, should this ever change and the Fediverse grows more welcoming and that works and it grows bigger, of course the moment users move in (in numbers), advertisers, astroturfers and all will move in with them. That’s just a given.

And partially why I hate this “Just block’em!”-approach to Threads: It assumes the stick-your-fingers-into-your-ears-and-ignore-the-issue approach would ever be an actual solution to any problem. And then when you run into an issue you cannot avoid that way, you have fuck all experience doing something actionable about it, as you’ve never tried before.

It is a fair position in the sense that it’s technically within their legal rights to do whatever the fuck they want, but it is a feeble sham compared to the full and well-behaved fedi interoperability they should’ve had from the start since that was how it was sold from to their users from the beginning.

If they some day get there, I would still be open to considering federating with it. For now “it’s an ongoing process” as they carefully tweak things to find out how far they can go with the strictly limited access to the outside world they allow, while still keeping all their users captive.

If you were a threads user, you’d be unable to reply to this even if you did somehow see it. I welcome any of them to do so and prove me wrong.

Have Facebook not heard of the Internet? Anyone can right click save as.

They have, old politicians haven’t

The fact that it’s been out for a year and federation is still only half-implemented suggests to me the decision to add it was pretty late in the development process, even if it was early in the marketing process.