70
Twitter’s decentralized offshoot Bluesky now has 2 million users
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
70 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37573 readers
246 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
so... not decentralized as of now?
Yup. I moved to Mastodon because of it, I don't trust BlueSky.
I don't trust a platform that is funded by the guy who gladly sold the previous one to the moron who's now in charge. And I don't trust their claims because as of now decentralized it isn't. It's just not. And there is no real reason for them to do so. So eventually they may just walk back their claims and 99% of the user base won't care about this.
Plus, this website is going to need to make money eventually. But as of yet, they have no concrete monetization plan, which is basically the norm in nowadays with these kinds of projects. We grow fast, we make money later. How is that going to happen? Is it going to be filled with ads? Is it going to basically make the same mistakes as before? We don't know.
Plus again, this is originally made and funded by the guy who made Twitter. And let's not pretend that Twitter wasn't already a dumpster fire before the Muskrat came in. It was. Twitter sucked way before this and, personally, I left it waaaay before this guy came in.
I'm done, personally. I'm done with all of this. If a company is public, I don't even care about their product anymore. Investors are going to ruin it. Doesn't apply here, good. If a social media platform is not decentralized, not open source, I don't want to have anything to do with it anymore. So, no Bluesky I'm done with all of that.
I am on Mastodon and I'm happy with my choice. And that's it for me. I'm not trying anything else. I'm happy on there. It's not filled with ads. I don't have to worry about investors fucking ruining it eventually. And I don't have to worry about it becoming a shithole filled algorithmically boosted Neo-Nazis because anger drives engagement and engagement makes money.
A while back, I was still hesitant. Then I read this article which basically sold me on it.
Jack Dorsey didn't really have a choice since Twitter is a public company and he made an offer that was way over the per share price. If he refused to sell, the stockholders could have filed a lawsuit for not acting in their best interest.
it's just a lie by a corperation. don't trust it
BSky is the media's favourite, so of course they're doing the PR campaign.
In essence, no
@throws_lemy @noodlejetski The registry still is centralized, but the users already are distributed across multiple servers that talk to each other using that protocol.
That just sounds like standard scaling. No big Plattform is running on one server with one instance
@notepass No. In difference to regular scaling you can see the host of your account. These are separate systems that communicate via Bluesky's protocol and not via the regular scaling mechanisms.
can users in other instances talk with people in bluesky?
No because it’s not decentralized. That’s like saying Twitter is decentralized because it’s microservices communicate over https.
That's what I wanted to ask. Last time I heard about their federation, their team were claiming the tests are underway in a sandbox or something. I wonder how that's going.
@loki @dawnerd Well, since the accounts are now moved to their specific hosts, you can use these hostnames instead of the generic one when using their protocol. The only action where you currently still need the generic bluesky host name (bsky.app) is during some account related activities.
The different hosts already talk to each other using the same protocol that is already in use for third parties who interact with bluesky (like alternate clients or custom feeds). The only thing that currently prevents "real" decentralization is the user registry.
From the outside it appears as if it all was some monolithic block. But this is only the case since the default usernames are using the
bsky.socialhostname. But in fact you can already use your own hostnames for your account, since the account is not locked to any hostname but to some unique hash. (Which is one of the advantages of their protocol and which we really should implement in the Fediverse as well to perform real account portability)@loki What do you mean exactly with "other instances" in this context?
Interesting. I don't fully understand the mechanics behind it but it certainly sounds a bit different then the usual