Do you have any understanding of what fedipact is about? Obviously this not about software security dangers and rather about the danger that large commercial entities like meta bring to the longevity of a free fediverse.

It’s not the protocol, it’s the users. There’s a vocal group that would rather stay small, niche, and remain in obscurity away from the rest of the world. They fear that they’re going to lose their pedestal and megaphone because their quirky skewed view of the world will be drowned out by mainstream worldviews. They’ll then mask it with claims of “privacy”, “EEE”, or “anti-blahblahblah_that_I_dont_like”.

Big companies did wonders for Mastadon’s adoption, and will likely do the same here. The lack of users and content will be resolved when it happens, and I just hope I can hold out long enough until that happens.

Unsafe for the forest, not unsafe for the trees.

Which is to say - not unsafe for individual users or from a day-to-day operations perspective, but unsafe in a platform survival way.

Major companies start working with open source projects until they’ve added a significant amount to them, then they start rolling out proprietary parts that work with their additions, then they move away from the open source project, leaving the original project incompatible with a bulk of its users and platform. The project finds itself both quite big and lacking support, with adopters moving to the closed-source implementation(s). This is often called Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish, and it’s been used to harm Open Office formats, messaging platforms, and is currently being used by Google with Chrome to strip away user privacy and redo how the internet works, for the sake of their advertising empire.
Facebook and BlueSky activity pub integration efforts should not and can not be seen as an altruistic gesture.