this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
1237 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

63186 readers
3449 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] victorz@lemmy.world 34 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Cool. I'm going out on a limb and saying Bluesky seems pretty based so far. I made an account when it was announced, and it's pretty cool. Nice app, seemingly good mission statement.

I don't want to dismiss something until it actually turns to shit. If it's good now, I'll use it now. When it turns to crap, I'll just jump off. I'll always have Lemmy and Mastodon as my mains, so I don't see the harm personally. ๐Ÿคทโ€โ™‚๏ธ Let's just hope it'll last for the scientists' sake.

[โ€“] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 16 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (3 children)

Problem is it absolutely will turn when the Bluesky owners Jay Graber and Jack Dorsey decide it's time to cash in. The project started out as a way to start decentralizing twitter, but they never actually accomplished that goal.

[โ€“] Natanael@infosec.pub 3 points 3 hours ago

Jack Dorsey never had ownership (just directed an investment) and left the board (didn't agree with moderation, lol)

Jay also isn't majority owner.

It's a public benefit corporation too so they don't have a profit requirement.

The harder parts with decentralizing content-addressed systems like it is scaling open spaces (like how a microblog is technically one big shared space). You need big caches and big indexes. They're working actively on making it easier for others to run those app servers. There's already a few independent projects building them. Federating account hosting and feed generation and moderation services are all live already

[โ€“] victorz@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Why is it a problem? If a tool is good now, I'll use it now.

I don't stop myself from buying a new axe just because it'll break eventually, you know what I mean?

Although obviously if there was an axe that never would break, I'd buy that! But maybe there are trade-offs. Maybe the never-breaking axe has a complicated handle or something. I don't know, I'm trying my best with the axe analogy to describe Bluesky vs Mastodon. ๐Ÿ˜… Hopefully it's clear enough!

[โ€“] naught101@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago

It's a problem for the same reason twitter dying sucks.. The network effect is important, and maintaining yours during a slow, piecemeal mass migration is hard. Which is why I'm sticking with mastodon now, despite more of my relevant network being on BS.

[โ€“] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

We can avoid it ever becoming shit when a wannabe dictator buys it if we make it impossible to sell: like mastodon and other federated options.

[โ€“] victorz@lemmy.world 1 points 21 minutes ago

Right, that's the sure-fire way. But if a platform is better in some way than another, I'm inclined to use it, as long as it's morally just to do so.

I like Bluesky because it's more like Twitter was. But I like Mastodon because of how liberated it is. So I'll use both, probably, until Bluesky turns to shit (or doesn't).

[โ€“] Virkkunen@fedia.io 9 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Jack Dorsey has nothing to do with Bluesky

[โ€“] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Aside from being its founder. I know he left the board, but I haven't seen any reason to believe he gave up ownership rights.

[โ€“] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 points 3 hours ago

He never had ownership. The investment was in the form of a contract to build the protocol, not buying shares.

[โ€“] Virkkunen@fedia.io 9 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Leaving the board of directors is pretty much as giving up ownership rights. He has nothing to do with Bluesky anymore and he makes us sure he doesn't want to.

[โ€“] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 8 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Leaving the board of directors means no day to day control, but he could still exert influence on a shareholders vote.

[โ€“] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 3 hours ago

He's not a shareholder, and also it's a public benefit corporation so shareholders have less power over the board

[โ€“] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 9 points 11 hours ago

It means he doesn't directly manage it. Proof that he sold his ownership to somebody else would be evidence of giving up ownership rights.