European. Polite contrarian. History graduate. I never downvote reasoned opinions and I do not engage with people who downvote mine (which may be why you got no reply). Low-effort comments with vulgarity or snark will also be ignored.

  • 3 Posts
  • 496 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle

  • OK I get all that and it’s not to be dismissed. But their product is better than what we have here. That’s why Blacksky built upon it and not upon this, despite the cost. The excessive centralization seems to be more of a human problem than a technical one. Humans take the path of least resistance and Bluesky’s resources have allowed it to make a product that the fediverse will never be able to compete with.

    Personally, I get what I want here (I don’t use Bluesky) but it’s pretty clear to me that I’m not representative (in caring about the principle of decentralization) and neither are you. I’m a pragmatist by nature. Bluesky and AT Proto are an obvious improvement on Twitter. If they have the potential to be a version of decentralization that actually takes off and goes mainstream (because let’s be serious, the fediverse is not doing that), then personally I would take that win. It hasn’t happened yet but personally I’m not going to spit on it in advance like everyone here is doing.


  • they are in complete control of the real-world use of it

    They’re not. I mentioned Blacksky.

    As I understand it, their endgame is that Bluesky will be a big fish in a pond of other fish, and that the best way to get that fishpond is to make Bluesky as good a product as possible, hence the (limited) VC money.

    As a strategy it has risks but so does the alternative. To make the obvious comparison, UX on the fediverse is rubbish, with an incomprehensible onboarding funnel, amateurish design, servers that keep disappearing. There’s a reason Bluesky has eaten the fediverse’s lunch.

    With respect, I think people here are making this into a sterile religious war when really it’s a disagreement about strategy. Some of the people who vouch for Bluesky I have been following for years. They want exactly the same things as most people here. Personally, I see no reason to question their intentions.


  • Fair enough. But, as you know already, AT Protocol is not chained to Bluesky. Other things are already being built on it (Blacksky for instance). Sure, the startup costs of federation are high, but that was a technical choice. To insist that it’s all a plot to become the next evil Twitter continues to feel a bit swivel-eyed to me.



  • IMO this is unfair and conspiratorial. The people behind Bluesky have been quite clear about where they are trying to go (i.e. not simply replace Twitter), some of those people have a lot of credibility in this area, built up over years. Maybe they make different assumptions about tech and user preferences but I see no reason to assume evil intentions.







  • The “sharing” of contacts lists is surely the original sin of privacy on the internet.

    It’s an absolutely outrageous proposition when you think about it. “Give us the names and numbers of everyone you know, whether they consent or not.” By triangulating this particular data, the tech giants (and even some of the more successful app developers) know more about us than our governments do.

    It’s infuriating that this practice has been accepted as normal. It makes it almost impossible for individuals to choose privacy, i.e. without being grassed on by their oblivious friends. It should never have been allowed.