I think the author is missing a connection between the two arguments that he talks about.
Open Source isn't just about self-hosting, but about being able to choose your provider. And the ability to freely choose your provider is dependent on the services on different providers being interoperable.
Also, without a strong Open Source movement, there's no incentive for the closed platforms to interoperate. If anything, there's only disincentives.
As I see it, the only big player with the necessary clout/infrastructure and Open Source credentials and incentives to make the necessary changes is Google.
Open Source isn't just about self-hosting, but about being able to choose your provider. And the ability to freely choose your provider is dependent on the services on different providers being interoperable.
Also, without a strong Open Source movement, there's no incentive for the closed platforms to interoperate. If anything, there's only disincentives.
As I see it, the only big player with the necessary clout/infrastructure and Open Source credentials and incentives to make the necessary changes is Google.