[astrange]

The EU believes social networks and messaging apps should all connect to each other. This is a bad idea (it makes spam filtering impossible) but nevertheless it's in the DMA.

Mastodon admins might find that law applies to them too.

[smoldesu]

I'd wager Mastodon is ready for this. Abhorrent/illegal/spamming/offensive/offending instances can be defederated from to remove liability at a server-level, and users can self-moderate with "block instance" functionality from their client. Both sides are sufficiently equipped to filter their respective feeds.

It's the realm of pure fantasy to envision a world where the EU bans an original community project to force everyone into a Meta-designed fork. Mastodon users should be safe as long as they're free to run their own server and client software.

[astrange]

My point is that Mastodon admins may not be allowed to defederate or block Meta, any more than Meta is allowed to not connect to them.

[smoldesu]

That's fine. Blocking their entire website from ever hitting your feed takes 2 clicks.

My point is that this really doesn't matter. If they use ActivityPub as-written, both clients and servers can stop Meta content from reaching their feed. If you just find Threads content annoying, you long-press the post and tap "Block Instance". If you're a site admin and have been given a legitimate reason to block Meta for API abuse (eg. poorly-moderated content, spam, advertisement) then you can exercise your defederation power and be within your right.

[dahwolf]

DMA applies only to gatekeeper companies, of which there's less than 20. It doesn't apply to Mastodon instances.

Further, interoperability concerns messaging apps, not social media apps.