What's wrong with bluesky?
What's wrong with bluesky?
Seriously i have zero idea what is going on with bluesky. I never used it. Why are people saying it's centralised? I also heard that a lot of people are joining it.
You're viewing a single thread.
Nothing is "wrong" with it. Its just a different platform.
The "problem" is that its just a different platform. Nothing is really different. It's like choosing Pepsi over Coke. Its a choice and maybe one is flavored more to your liking, but they are both full of the same ingredients and unhealthy with continual ingestion.
I haven't used it either, because I didn't like Twitter or X. Today I suspect Bsky is fine, because it hasn't been around long enough to become toxic or to censor discussions etc... Just give it time, it will get there.
The issue most people are bringing up is that there are "better" platforms (i.e. fediverse) that aren't getting any traffic instead.
I can understand this, but the flip side is that the voices promoting the fediverse usually arent very compelling either in voice or ease. Think of it like somebody wanting to buy a PC. One person says to get Linux (and arch of course) because it's the best and you're a fool to get anything else. Here, take it and figure it out. Another person says to get a Mac, because it can do everything you need it to do, easily and without work, plus has added features you didn't even think about that seem useful to your life. And if you get stuck they have a genius bar to assist. So people choose Mac. Similarly people are choosing Bsky because it's easy and straightforward.
I disagree with saying there's nothing wrong with it, just as I would disagree that there was nothing wrong with the original Twitter. It is creating conditions which lead it towards for-profit behaviour which will end up hurting users, unlike some other platforms which are not run for-profit.
This is a far-reaching difference with real societal impacts if the platform becomes dominant, not just some difference in taste that can be hand-waved away as nothing.
I get that, and I'm sort of saying that. The only difference is that I'm not calling for profit businesses wrong. In agree that its a non sustainable model for social media from the users perspective, but it's a very sustainable model from the company perspective.
But that's why I choose differently now. And others might choose differently when the platform gets to be in a poor state.
The key here is I can't make that decision for others. Now or later. If you want people to go to another platform, then build a better platform and market it better.
When it converts to the profit extraction phase the cutting edge folks will move on. Then the content will slowly become dominated by corporate auto created content. And then eventually the average person will look for the next place to go.
This is just the new cool local bar hangout at scale. This is how human socialization works. It has worked like this for hundreds of years.
You say this as if it's some inevitable law of society, but I disagree. The profit extraction phase isn't an inevitability, especially online where digital hosting is relatively cheap and services can be run with 0 income, and many larger sites have run off unconditional donations only (and therefore without having to compromise for investors). The domination of content by exploitative actors can be combatted, especially when you aren't desperate for income from corporations.
It's obviously an uphill battle, but it's been done at smaller scales for social media sites and had been done at large scale for other sites like archive.org and Wikipedia.
I think the big difference here is that to the average user they see archive.org or Wikipedia as being a onesided transaction. An Archive where folks store information for you, an encyclopedia where information is stored by folks for you. There is no expectation of engagement of the average user. It is rare for someone to wake up and think "Man I gotta put something up on Wikipedia today or people are going to think I'm not the person I act like I am".
People go to social events to keep up appearances. People participate on social media to keep up appearances. Maintaining these types of things require you to effectively help people balance their ability to participate in society with their ability to communicate. A Wikipedia contributor is a scholar. A community moderator is a bartender and a bouncer rolled into one. It doesn't have the stability because the work required to keep things going is high stress for the majority of the people doing the work.
Lemmy's solution is nice because the smaller instances can just ban whole cloth the larger ones and everyone gets to move forward. It means you never are burdened by having a ton of users, but that then also defies the goal of some of the larger social media platforms.