I'm liking bluesky a lot, seems like they rolled back most of twitters toxicity. I'm seeing a lot of communities jump over and I'm all for it, we need more options on social media.
Because the definition of what is and isn’t technology is arbitrary. Wikipedia says “Technology is the application of conceptual knowledge to achieve practical goals, especially in a reproducible way.” By that definition, social media is a technology (uses knowledge of computers and networking to enable online communication), but also so are most human creations.
Decentralized/OSS platforms >>> Multiple competing centralized platforms >>> One single centralized platform
Bluesky and Threads are both bad but having more options than Twitter/X is still a step in the right direction, especially given the direction Musk is taking it in. As much as I like the fediverse (I won't be using either Threads or BlueSky anytime soon), it still has a lot of problems surrounding ease of use. Lemmy, Mastodon, Misskey, etc. would benefit a lot from improving the signup process so that the average user doesn't need to be overwhelmed with picking an instance and understanding how federation works.
Platforms like Twitter are incredibly useful for following public figures and journalists, your feed doesn’t have to be all brainrot. Having a similar platform that’s not in the hands of a billionaire freak is in the public interest.
I have a really hard time seeing a difference between X and Bluesky. Both are run by billionaires for their amusement and benefit. Why are people so hopeful about bluesky?
Oh, really? OK, that makes it definatelly less terrible. I guess I need to update myself about the organization behind it then. Thanks for the correction!
Dorsey is THE founder of BLUESKY, and is it's largest shareholder, even though he is no longer on the board, and went through the theater of closing his BLUESKY account, he will have the say as to who BLUESKY is sold to, when eventually it will be. Fool me once.
Having used it for several days now, I can tell you the difference is that Bluesky is a lot like Lemmy - not filled with hate and vitriol, and easy to make it what you want by selecting your feeds and following things you care about while pruning the rest.
The people who can't socialize properly with others are swiftly dealt with. Subscription blocklists make it really easy to just annihilate any possible interaction between yourself and undesirables. I have several blocklist subscriptions for MAGA chuds and White Supremacists for example. And when you block someone on Bluesky they can't see what you write and you'll never see anything from them ever again. Zero interaction from that point on. So the housekeeping actions actually keep the house clean.
Once you've done the initial housekeeping, it's just full of people talking about cool stuff, and when someone crashes the party to be nasty they are quickly shown the door. It's wonderful.
Also trying out Bluesky, and it is a lot like Twitter used to be, but it has the potential to turn out like Xitter is today, because at the end of the day Bluesky is a for-profit startup corporation.
Sooner or later, Bluesky is going to want to make money for its shareholders, and that means any of: 1) Selling advertisements, 2) Selling your personal data, and/or 3) In a classic tech startup play, selling itself to the highest bidder like: Android, YouTube, and yes, Twitter.
And with commercialization, or in Xitter's case a fool with too much money, comes enshittification.
Lemmy is nothing like a for-profit startup company, as far as I know, but that doesn't make it enshittification-proof, but at least it won't take the commercialization route.
That's a big motivator for the migration but that's not "it," people on bsky seem to prefer the way blocking on bsky works, especially since X made your posts visible to people you have blocked.
Yes. Having centralized ownership (to whatever extent) is a concern for sure, but it's a hypothetical concern in and of itself: "what if the leadership does bad things?" Is different from "the leadership is currently doing bad things."
Decentralization helps. But if the networks effects aren't behind it, jumping from platform to platform when things DO get bad is also viable.
The problem is not that they are billionaires. But one is run by an obvious malignant narcissist, and the other is not.
One is responsible the other is not.
Yeah and contraversial take i think as long as there are strict rules about not allowing single direction federation or federating ads then they should be allowed to fededate.
Ah yes, always good to retreat to a safespace of open, and honest dialogue. Sadly, liberals can't stand not forcing their opinion on people so this will be shortlived.