"The post"{https://mst3k.interlinked.me/@Elizafox/105562613778968936} seemed to be a lot of fear-mongering, even more than the article itself.

(1) #Twitter has millions of users. There is no #ActivityPub nor #OStatus implementation in which an instance hosted on a $5/mo #DigitalOcean / #Linode / #Vultr #VPS could handle the volume of a seamless connection with #Twitter. If they adopted AP OStatus, #Diaspora, or any other current open federation protocol, instances that didn't use firewall blocking would topple once the two userbases had sufficient interconnections (within a few hours or a few days after they started federating).

(2) Twitter's business model is to push ads disguised as tweets. If their users could escape those and still interact with all the same contacts, they would. I'm certain that Twitter's management know this. They also turn all links into tracking links, and sell access to media (images, video, audio) uploads of important news events to news organizations.

(3) Most Fediverse instances are financed out of the admin's pocket. Some have financial contributors, but nothing like Twitter's revenue. As the largest and best-financed instance, they would immediately have to start implementing modifications to make AP or other existing federation protocols useful to them, and those modifications would (as Mastodon's currently do) become unofficially mandatory in order to be compatible.

(4) This isn't the first time that Twitter has considered federation, though this may be the first time they openly discussed it. Back when Identica was still a happening place (during Twitter's fail-whale days), Twitter considered federating. They didn't do it then, and I honestly do not believe they will do it now.

(5) I'd say that Twitter's #BlueSky initiative is more meant to try to get bidirectional connections across #Facebook's moat and wall than it is to surround Twitter with a cloud of #Fediverse instances.