My two cents on the #Threads situation:
1) Yes, people are right to be wary of Meta, but 2) their adaption of #ActivityPub is still a net positive for the #Fediverse .
We know of Meta's blatant data mining, their abominable moderation, and their misuse of their algorithms to fan the flames of hatred. Thus, it's perfectly reasonable to defederate them.
However, plenty of large news and other organizations are in a bind - they need large social media reach for their influence, subscribers, and customer base. And the Fediverse itself is basically a rounding error when it comes to worldwide social media reach.
Threads, on the other hand, is significantly bigger. Thus, it's worth for these organizations to invest some effort into it. But it is by no means guaranteed that Threads will survive - right now, it's one of the bigger players in the fight for the Twitter successors, but we don't know if this will last.
But if Threads ends up fully compatible with ActivityPub, these organizations can set up their own ActivityPub servers and get the best of both world - gain reach and followers on Threads, while remaining independent enough to remain standing if Threads folds.
And other large organizations adapting ActivityPub - such as the recent #Flipboard announcement - should likewise be seen in that vein. They are building an ActivityPub-based network that allows them to remain independent - yet be connected to large platforms such as Threads who are compatible with it as well.
So if you want to defederate Threads, do so - there's certainly enough reason to be leery of them. But there _are_ use cases where federating with Threads makes sense. And these will help make the Fediverse grow.