why are people frothing over Bluesky? this is just Twitter but owned by a different oligarch
Yeah, why would I use BlueSky when I could just use my favorite platform named Threads?
Tap for spoiler
Just kidding
Because they learned nothing
No clue. Never found those platforms to be useful, just toxic.
Same here… even when Twitter was not even in the sights of fElon I found it to be super toxic. I signed up because “it was the best way to get the news” and left in about 4 days
Because it isn’t just Twitter. Nobody can buy the network, the same way nobody can buy email.
- Anyone can host a server.
- Anyone can make an app.
- Anyone can make an algorithm.
- Anyone can make a moderation service. Users can freely pick a server, app, algorithm, and moderation service.
Yeah, no, not anybody can host a server. Sure, you can host a PDS, but the AppView still wasn’t open source last time I looked, and hosting a relay requires tens of terabytes of storage, not to mention the bandwidth to keep up.
Meanwhile, people host actual activitypub instances on repurposed routers and their car entertainment system…
Ngl thanks for the detail, I went and had another look so correct me if I’m wrong.
- Anyone can host a open source PDS like the Bluesky PDS.
- Anyone can make an AppView to view these PDSs.
- Someone with many resources needs to host a relay.
- Also it seems that Bluesky is able to gatekeep access to its federation of PDSs on a per AppView basis? The details are a bit confusing.
So if we wanted to undermine Bluesky’s currently - hopefully temporary - centralised state, we would need multiple community modified PDSs, a widely rehosted open source AppView webapp & iOS/Android clients, a very expensive relay that is community controlled via non profit or something, and then we would be federated with each other and the bluesky infrastructure too?
Sounds like a lot of work just to recreate the user-end functionality of ActivityPub :/ Very confused why they felt the need to invent ATProtocol? I have heard some vague praise of it over AP but I think I’m not technical enough to really properly make that comparison. It’s nice that ATProtocol gives you ownership of your data though.
Perhaps Mastodon/ActivityPub-apps need to improve their onboarding process and user experience. Maybe include the custom feeds feature for Bluesky too. Something has to have gone wrong for Mastodon to have failed where Bluesky succeeded.
They have an addiction to that kind of socials.
Bluesky is like Twitter but with about 1/10th the idiots, and no mechanism that the idiots can elevate their racist, moronic hot takes above other comments.
Bluesky will follow the same enshittification trajectory Twitter did, it is just the beginning of the rollercoaster where the coaster is slowly brought up to the top to be launched… and everyone is exclaiming “wow I haven’t even thrown up yet!” as if that was any indicator of how much they were about to throw up…
Maybe it will, but for the time being it hasn’t. The experience is so vastly better than Twitter, that it’s a no brainer to jump over. It also helps to have a decent competing platform that people like to suck users and influence away from the platform that Musk turned into a cesspit.
Yes but Twitter was fine for well over 10 years so it’s fine. Like I don’t understand this attitude that we can’t enjoy something now because at some point in the future it may theoretically be not as good.
I don’t think it will go down the same path as Twitter, since Bluesky is open source and available on Github other devs will have the possibility to improve it or create a better version of it but with the more users joining it might necessary to monetize it to better cover the costs. I would love to see everyone switching to the Fediverse but it’s not very intuitive for the average end user with the instances and the fact that you need to target a user and an instance to follow it
*an incomplete subset of Bluesky is opensource
what do you mean by incomplete subset ? The code is available on Github and can be compiled
The entire appview layer is proprietary in practice and in spirit.
can you please be more specific ? What proprietary parts you found ? Did you read the code ? Again code is open source and anyone can read it and modify it, there is no proprietary, the license used is MIT not another weird license that limit the code from being used for other purposes like commercial stuff
The code isn’t available for the parts that aren’t open source? Just because a component of a system is open source doesn’t mean the entire system can be called open source.
That is a dangerous conflation to make in public discourse about this as it warps the conversation in artificial ways.
Make NO mistake if the entire system was actually open source they would have no way to lucratively monetize bluesky, and that is precisely what they will do.
The CEO of Bluesky has gone on record saying they haven’t ruled out monetizing through forcing ads on a system. Do you not understand that is functionally impossible to force ads on a fully open source system?
how can you be so stunningly naive
To anyone bemoaning BlueSky’s lack of federation, check out Free Our Feeds.
It’s a campaign to create a public interest foundation independent from the Bluesky team (although the Bluesky team has said they support them) that will build independent infrastructure, like a secondary “relay” as an alternative to Bluesky’s that can still communicate across the same protocol (The “AT Protocol”) while also doing developer grants for the development of further social applications built on open protocols like the AT Protocol or ActivityPub.
They have the support of an existing 501c(3), and their open letter has been signed by people you might find interesting, such as Jimmy Wales (founder of Wikipedia).
This is such a half-assed dog and pony show.
They have millions in investment, why do they need someone else to fund this? Why don’t the bluesky team directly and materially support them?
This is a core aspect of Bluesky’s marketing and they asking other volunteers to help make them rich.
Until there’s overt advertising its unlikely to enshittify the normal way. That doesn’t mean it won’t, just that a different capital process is at work. Wikipedia has outlived most of “web2.0” because its funded by donations and run by volunteers.
Until there’s overt advertising its unlikely to enshittify the normal way.
Trust me we will be deep into that territory so fast it is going to make your head spin.
Wikipedia has outlived most of “web2.0” because its funded by donations and run by volunteers.
Private equity and VC funding can’t directly buy Wikipedia and dissect it because it is an at least somewhat functional non-profit organization. That is the only reason.
What would a comparable example be?
Twitter
deleted by creator
Twitter was ad driven and was enshittifying before musk bought it, and sold because they were a public company.
Jay Graber will likely get bored and sell it off or monetize eventually but twitter is definitely not the model here.
The only thing the Fediverse is missing is way to migrate from 1 instance to another
It actually does exist, at least on Mastodon, but is still very janky (e.g. old posts aren’t moved over due to “technical limitations”)
Automatically makes people unfollow your old account and re-follow your new account, then makes your old instance’s link redirect to your new instance’s one.
I feel like the reason the reason why it’s taking off so much is because it’s not federated.
It’s like people hear the term federation and they get afraid. I know it’s not that simple but still.
In other words, people don’t know what they actually need.
People are not afraid of the term “Federation.“ They literally have no clue what it is.
It’s the instance concept I find consistently to be an issue. It’s an extra layer/barrier to entry. You don’t just create an account. You have to understand what an instance is and then determine which one you’re joining and what that means for your moment to moment usage of the platform.
Yeah I was confused on if it was connected, if I was explaining it to myself id say that the fediverse has interconnected forums that all serve the same content and can be accessed by making accounts on different websites or apps.
Lemmy, mbin, piefed, etc. are all ways to access the interconnected forum/threads side of the fediverse.
Mastodon, sharkey, plaroma, etc. are all ways to access the interconnected microblogging slide of the fediverse.
They all have different features, like mbin has account reputation, piefed has topics which let you sub to multiple related communities at once, etc., but the content is shared between those that serve the same type of content.
Since they’re all built ontop of the same protocol ppl can always come in and build on top of it or make hybrids while still letting everyone access the same content. Like mbin having both microblogging (tweets) and threads, letting you post and view both from the same account/website.
And it legit takes 5 minutes to sign up for 5 instances and see the differences, mine showed the same content for the most part, only lemmy.world was missing the piracy community, other than that it was all the same and any nervousness I had about it went away after seeing the feeds being the same.
Yeah but people don’t want to set up 5 accounts to understand alt-reddit. They want to download a clean app that takes seconds to set up and just go. Friction is friction.
Not everyone likes to tinker and poke and prod
Not only do I don’t mind multiple instances, I welcome it. It’s a feature for me, not a bug. But having to create multiple accounts is a no-no and what keeps people away. People say you only need one but that’s not true if you want to be active in multiple instances.
If the fediverse had a way to unify account creation, that would be a game changer. It’s pretty much what’s holding the fediverse down, be it Lemmy, Pixelfed, PeerTube, etc. It’s frustrating because without that limitation I could see the corpos being given a run for their money.
I think maybe I mis-conveyed my point. I love the way this is all structured. The problem is that it is not accessible to laymen at first glance. I tried the “it’s like email” approach and people’s eyes still just glaze over. They want to download an app, create their account, and jump into the action. Anything beyond that requires a lot of buy-in unless they are already somewhat technically inclined.
As I said in another comment, I find the simplest thing to do is just set up the account for them, pick out an instance for them and tell them what it is, and then once they’ve stuck it out and get their bearings then open the door a little wider and explain Federation, the nature of different instances, etc. My only goal is just to get them on at all.
they should understand by the 2nd one, I just wasnt sure where I wanted to commit, it became fun by the 2nd one to pick an instance like a club
there really isnt much friction either if you dont cate about piracy otherwise id have stayed on lemmyworld when vyjr reccomended it, they really just need to try it, I complained until I tried it
But even then you have to explain the whole subscribed vs local vs all situation. Then defederation, so they know that there is stuff they can’t access without creating another account on another instance.
No matter how much we simplify it it’s simply not that simple. At least not compared to traditional social media. And we can sit here and call them lazy for not learning how it works or we can do more to try to meet people where they’re at.
What I’ve been doing lately is pointing people a good app like Voyager, tell them not even to think about an instance and just join the one I tell them to join (For instance I tell my queer friends to join blahaj), then as they poke around I started explain explaining more things.
It’s kind of like Linux. People obsess over their first distro and then they realize it’s really easy to swap distro’s. So usually I just tell people to get something very simple like mint or pop and just dive in until they learn what they actually want.
I don’t think 99% of people who have joined bluesky have any clue what federation is or means. They do know what “not twitter” is however.
I don’t personally think it’s because of that. Sure, federation as a concept outside of email has a bit of a messaging problem for explaining it to newbies, but… everyone uses email, and knows how that works. This is identical, just with it being posts instead of emails. Users aren’t averse to federation, in concept or practice.
Bluesky was directly created as a very close clone of Twitter’s UI, co-governed and subsequently pushed by the founder of Twitter himself, who will obviously have more reach than randoms promoting something like Mastodon, and, in my opinion, kind of just had better branding.
“Bluesky” feels like a breath of fresh air, while “Mastodon” just sounds like… well, a Mastodon, whatever that makes the average person think of at first.
So when you compare Bluesky, with a familiar UI, nice name, and consistent branding, not to mention algorithms, which Mastodon lacks, all funded by large sums of money, to Mastodon, with unfamiliar branding, minimal funding, and substantially less reach from promoters, which one will win out, regardless of the technology involved?
Its also, honestly, just really hard to find people on Mastodon.
Exactly, it’s just packaged in a way that consumers are more familiar with with the backing of major celebs
Ah yes, “free our feeds” where millionaire VCs are asking for donations
Is this 30 million accounts created? Active user numbers would be a lot more meaningful.
As an illustration, if you have a platform that’s gaining 100,000 users each month and losing 100,000 other users each month, it’s basically going nowhere. But it will eventually reach this “30 million users” milestone too if all it means is account creations.
I wonder how many of the 30 million accounts are bots.
Active user numbers is probably less than 1 million, but still, 30 million accounts created is quite likely pretty good.
It’s something, but there’s really no frame of reference to know if it’s good or how good. Because companies rarely talk about this number. Twitter might have billions of accounts created if we look at all time.
Actives are what count.
What annoys me is that people are buying the idea that BlueSky is federated.
Not only is it not federated, the very architecture they designed means that it’s probably not federateable, at least not by normal users.
The way they designed it, a relay is required to collect and forward every single BlueSky post. That means, as the service grows, it becomes more and more impossible for anybody but a company to run a relay. Someone did some calculations back in November when it was a significantly smaller network, and they calculated that at a minimum it costs a few hundred dollars, possibly as much as 1000 bucks a month just to handle the disk storage needs for a relay on a leased server. The more the network grows, the more those costs skyrocket.
What good does it do to have a network that theoretically can be federated, but practically costs so much to run a single node that nobody except a for-profit company can manage it?
And that’s the kicker. Bluesky can never be meaningfully decentralized.
I’m not familiar with Blue sky, do they advertise as federated or how exactly do they claim to differ from a regular platform like original Twitter?
https://docs.bsky.app/docs/advanced-guides/federation-architecture
And reading an article from TechCrunch,
“The social network has a Twitter-like user interface with algorithmic choice, a federated design and community-specific moderation.”
“Is Bluesky decentralized? Yes. Bluesky’s team is developing the decentralized AT Protocol, which Bluesky was built atop.”
“However, the launch of federation will make it work more similarly to Mastodon in that users can pick and choose which servers to join and move their accounts around at will.”
So it definitely is pitching that is it decentralized and federated. Maybe the argument is that it “will be”, but at the moment it is not and at the moment it does not look like it will be an actual possibility.
Now people leaving Twitter is great, don’t get me wrong, but it’s possibly just kicking the can down the road. In a few years we’ll likely have articles complaining about missing “Old Bluesky” and how “new Bluesky” has the exact same problems that “Old Twitter” had.
Thanks for you detailed and cited response. Very clear!