zlacker

There's a couple of key differences between Google backing Google+ and Meta backing Threads.

1. Meta's entire business is social apps, and Google's is not. There are strategic differences in approach as a result. 2. Google+ was an attempt to disrupt Facebook's rise at the height of Facebook's popularity. People _liked_ FB then - so trying to get them to switch to another product was harder. Threads shipped during a time of volatility with Xitter and is poised to capture more of that audience as Xitter continues to decay.

In terms of how things will change in the space over time, Threads choice to support ActivityPub will probably mean good things for the Fediverse in general, at least in the short term (3E notwithstanding), and could ultimately serve to be the arbiter that kills BlueSky and the AT Protocol.

>>forbid+(OP)
Additionally, Google never seemed to be able to answer why someone should use Google+ in lieu of Facebook except that it would be very nice for Google if people would.

Whereas threads has the obvious benefit of attempting to grow while Twitter is self destructing.

>>forbid+(OP)
G+ also tried (was told to?) show relevance to other Google products by becoming a universal and mandated discussion thread mechanism. It wasn't ready. Got the totally expected blowback.

In contrast Meta isn't trying to Threadify everything. The addition of ActivityPub is an experiment that should be run in Threads.

>>Zigurd+0i
Another thing is people weren't just meh about G+ but because of the 'you now must use real names across our properties, yes, including youtube' message people were actively hostile to it.