EnglishMobster

Yes. Here are the timelines:

The DMA started applying as of beginning of May 2023. Within two months, companies providing core platform services have to notify the Commission and provide all relevant information. The Commission will then have 45 working days to adopt a decision designating a specific gatekeeper. Designated gatekeepers will have six months after the Commission decision to ensure compliance with the obligations foreseen in the DMA.

So we should start hearing things in about 2-3 months, with compliance in 8-9 months.

Relevant sections:

The ability of end users to acquire content, subscriptions, features or other items outside the core platform services of the gatekeeper should not be undermined or restricted. In particular, a situation should be avoided whereby gatekeepers restrict end users from access to, and use of, such services via a software application running on their core platform service. For example, subscribers to online content purchased outside a software application, software application store or virtual assistant should not be prevented from accessing such online content on a software application on the core platform service of the gatekeeper simply because it was purchased outside such software application, software application store or virtual assistant.

Gatekeepers can hamper the ability of end users to access online content and services, including software applications. Therefore, rules should be established to ensure that the rights of end users to access an open internet are not compromised by the conduct of gatekeepers. Gatekeepers can also technically limit the ability of end users to effectively switch between different undertakings providing internet access service, in particular through their control over hardware or operating systems. This distorts the level playing field for internet access services and ultimately harms end users. It should therefore be ensured that gatekeepers do not unduly restrict end users in choosing the undertaking providing their internet access service.

The lack of interoperability allows gatekeepers that provide number-independent interpersonal communications services to benefit from strong network effects, which contributes to the weakening of contestability. Furthermore, regardless of whether end users ‘multi-home’, gatekeepers often provide number-independent interpersonal communications services as part of their platform ecosystem, and this further exacerbates entry barriers for alternative providers of such services and increases costs for end users to switch. Without prejudice to Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council (14) and, in particular, the conditions and procedures laid down in Article 61 thereof, gatekeepers should therefore ensure, free of charge and upon request, interoperability with certain basic functionalities of their number-independent interpersonal communications services that they provide to their own end users, to third-party providers of such services.

Gatekeepers should ensure interoperability for third-party providers of number-independent interpersonal communications services that offer or intend to offer their number-independent interpersonal communications services to end users and business users in the Union. To facilitate the practical implementation of such interoperability, the gatekeeper concerned should be required to publish a reference offer laying down the technical details and general terms and conditions of interoperability with its number-independent interpersonal communications services. It should be possible for the Commission, if applicable, to consult the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications, in order to determine whether the technical details and the general terms and conditions published in the reference offer that the gatekeeper intends to implement or has implemented ensures compliance with this obligation.

In all cases, the gatekeeper and the requesting provider should ensure that interoperability does not undermine a high level of security and data protection in line with their obligations laid down in this Regulation and applicable Union law, in particular Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC. The obligation related to interoperability should be without prejudice to the information and choices to be made available to end users of the number-independent interpersonal communication services of the gatekeeper and the requesting provider under this Regulation and other Union law, in particular Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

Pretty clear legislation - no lock-in, don't block access to content, you must publish your API for others to use. Very good legislation.

Yes, and that's likely why Threads uses ActivityPub to begin with. See the EU's Digital Markets Act: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en

Examples of the “do’s” - Gatekeeper platforms will have to:

• allow third parties to inter-operate with the gatekeeper’s own services in certain specific situations
• allow their business users to access the data that they generate in their use of the gatekeeper’s platform
• provide companies advertising on their platform with the tools and information necessary for advertisers and publishers to carry out their own independent verification of their advertisements hosted by the gatekeeper
• allow their business users to promote their offer and conclude contracts with their customers outside the gatekeeper’s platform

The interoperability is the big one. Being federated means that Threads isn't considered a "gatekeeper platform". I wouldn't be surprised if Instagram and maybe even Facebook itself start to federate as well. Since Threads isn't currently connected to the wider fediverse, that's probably why they're not in the EU yet.

This also means that fears of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" are likely overblown. Breaking fediverse interoperability means that they'd be a gatekeeper again and subject to EU regulations against gatekeepers. The whole reason why Facebook is making Threads ActivityPub is so they don't get hit by EU rules about being gatekeepers of content.

This means your normal fediverse apps (e.g. Fedilab) would be able to work with Threads natively, without any need for "read-only" instances like you say.

Ah yes, a world where Napoleon conquered Moscow and renamed it "Paris".

Technically, the domain name is itjust.works. ;)

There are 4 options:

1. Public. This is how most subs operate. Everyone can post and comment.

2. Restricted. This disallows posts. You can set it to "restrict posts only", "restrict comments only", or "restrict both". Mods and "approved users" can still post as normal. /r/polandball used this to make sure that only good content from known people got submitted.

3. Private. This turns off the subreddit entirely - the only people who can see it are mods and the aforementioned approved users, while everyone else just sees the subreddit description. An example of this is /r/centuryclub, which only approves uses with over 100k karma.

4. Gold-only. You need to set this at subreddit creation (it can't be changed later). This restricts the sub to only be visible to people who have Reddit Gold.

Most subs who are "going dark" are setting their stuff to "private" and then changing the subreddit description to say something about the blackout, because that's all that users can see.

On Old Reddit, you can see the full message. On New Reddit, you see the first 20ish characters. On the official app, you don't see a message about why a subreddit is private at all.

I closed my 500k member subreddit yesterday!

It feels sad, but it needs to happen. We've moved here to Kbin - @Disneyland - and I linked it in the "we're going private" message.

Hopefully we get people to come over. We have half the original mod team and I'm still trying to convince the other half to join up before Kbin closes registration (I'm not sure if you can mod across instances).