When your platform advertises itself as decentralized, and a simple “host bluesky instance” search results in articles telling you to join the main instance’s waiting list… that sounds too stupid for me to give them the time of day.
I am surprised anyone uses or takes them seriously.
Bluesky is still in beta. It’s intentionally not open to the general public because federation hasn’t yet been opened up and they only have one instance running.
The nice thing about Bluesky’s architecture (over ActivityPub) is the fact your content and identity is portable. So you can move over to a different instance as they start to come online.
I think the important takeaway from articles like this is the fundamental misunderstanding of decentralized social protocols. It shouldn’t be on one central authority how things are moderated globally. These kinds of articles kind of prove the point.
You cite Bluesky account portability as an advantage over ActivityPub, but that’s not really accurate. Nothing in Bluesky is portable. There’s only one instance. There’s nowhere to port to. You can’t move anything.
Any “Decentralized” Solution that is not F.O.S. free and opensource was never “Decentralized” at all.
https://github.com/bluesky-social
Even their web and mobile clients are FOSS
The FUD and misinformation on here about Bluesky an AT is wild
MIT≠FOS
GNU is Free and forever free software… MIT not so much.
https://fossbytes.com/open-sources-license-type/
Point being, any forks of GNU will have a free version available, MIT carries no such limitation… making it a corpo favorite.
You can call it open source, but Free and Open source is questionable.
I feel like we’re splitting hairs here. MIT is an extremely permissible license. The fact someone could take this and make a closed source fork doesn’t affect the existence or openness of the MIT licensed releases
Bluesky was a no-start when they pushed their exclusivity marketing BS. And this after I was loath to use Mastodon because I thought “federation” was too complicated to understand (I’m old: 57 and should be at a point where all this “newfangled” technology is way beyond my wheelhouse).
Bluesky never responded to my request (nor did Tildes, which is why I am here). Mastodon.world was very easy to set up (as was signing up on Beehaw). Federation is not that complicated to understand or work with.
The bottom line is the federation architecture is what folks are looking for when they talk about wanting a user experience that works for them, but they, we, have to put in the effort. Top-down solutions will always follow what the top thinks is best, which as we have seen is not for the benefit of the user.
I get really frustrated by this paralysis through over-analysis (and I am INTP - the POSTER CHILD of over-analysis and it’s concomitant paralysis). Just do AB testing and see which platform gives you the experience you enjoy most. The perfect time to test new systems is to do so in parallel with the old system that is failing.
As an old-fart GenX, I can’t believe I’m the one to tell people to stop being afraid of change.
But really, I don’t have any trust in Bluesky with the ex-Twitter CEO in any way involved. And I am sure as hell not playing their exclusive club game.
Federation is not that complicated to understand or work with.
Yep. Anyone who’s worked with email before should already be somewhat familiar with how this works. I personally side-eye the users I see on the corporate platforms saying that the sign-up process is too complicated. If you can’t decide on an instance in the long list of instances that every Fediverse platform provides, just pick the first one and make an account somewhere else later if you end up not liking it as there is no limit on making accounts; IMO this isn’t a difficult conclusion to reach.
“Choice Overload” is a thing. When presented with too many choices people will be unable to make a choice.
People just need to throw out recommendations when suggesting the fediverse. I’m on beehaw because I saw it mentioned a lot when I first heard of Lemmy
created a custom algorithm for Black users called Blacksky, said it was unfortunate that Bluesky tried to offer custom algorithms as a “solution” to the moderation debate
That’s a very interesting approach, but in my opinion if a user is being repeatedly rude towards a particular race, it’s unlikely they’ll be encouraging positive discussion elsewhere on the platform. Why keep them around and use an algorithm to make their account look like a clean slate to some users?
The ACLU, for example, can label certain accounts and posts as “hate-speech.” Other users will be able to subscribe to the ACLU’s content filter to mute content.
This is also really interesting, my only concern here personally is the amount of manpower required for this to be effective, especially when the platform gains a lot of users, and whether that manpower is being compensated in some way, seeing as bluesky is a for-profit (public benefit?) company
This reminds me of the killer feature of Google+ - Circles. The abilities to trivially share “follow lists.” Adding Blocklist sharing to it makes perfect sense. Both of these are features Mastodon might want to implement.
“We do not condone death threats and will continue to remove accounts when we believe their posts represent targeted harassment or a credible threat of violence. But not all heated language crosses the line into a death threat,” Graber said in a weekend thread. “Wisely or not, many people use violent imagery when they’re arguing or venting. We debated whether a “death threat” needs to be specific and direct in order to cause harm, and what it would mean for people’s ability to engage in heated discussions on Bluesky if we prohibited this kind of speech.”
Well I was curious about Bluesky (they’re still on a waitlist when I check so even their beta has bad actors lol) but a space that hems and haws about death threats? You can be the rudest son of a bitch and never threaten harm! This reminds me of that stupid decision by the Supreme Court that “oh well they didn’t REALLY intend to kill you”. If someone threatens me, it becomes my job to decide if it was real or not? Wtf?
Goddamn free speech absolutism has taken some crazy pills. I remember ‘fighting words’ concept, a death threat used to be understood as almost enough to warrant self-defense preemptively. Now everyone does it and “don’t really mean it”. 🙄
And extremist right-wingers do mean it. Naturally they’ll claim they don’t because most other people aren’t sociopaths, but it’s no accident that the majority of political violence comes from the right.
yup! I also know there are some in ‘safe’ social groups who make the threats because they, as a member of that group, never (or so rarely they aren’t ACTUALLY worried) get attacked. But the groups they use death threats against DO experience such violence, (a fact that the free speech absolutist will argue against, while not even listening to the facts of the matter) and at the very least, I know I second guess the effort of engaging anyone who is willing to threaten to hurt me specifically. Or a question the value of talking with someone like that.
So that is why free speech absolutists LIKE being allowed to make death threats: those who experience violence disengage (or leave) and no one arguing makes them feel in the right. “No one is disagreeing, it means I am correct! It has nothing to do with the shotgun I put in the face of anyone who talks to me!”
It is horrifying.
Yup, because minorities hearing hatred and “plausible deniability” death threats all day is definitely not damaging at all.
As long as it’s a for profit and funded by VCs, then it’s subjected to pressure to chase profit by the investors. And as long as it’s pressured to chase profit, then it wouldn’t want to alienate the sizable far right population.
::shocked face:: who could have predicted this, lol
