this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
121 points (90.6% liked)

Asklemmy

44149 readers
1615 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kinkles@sh.itjust.works 110 points 3 weeks ago (10 children)

Nothing is wrong with it. Fediverse bros are just salty that it’s getting all the traffic instead of mastodon.

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 60 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

I mean, as long as Twitter goes down, who exactly gets to do the killing blow among all the individual blows doesn't truly matter now, does it?

[–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 57 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Depends on your perspective. Would it be fine for Meta Threads to replace it? Threads supports ActivityPub, so in some ways it likely interacts better with the fediverse.

If we agree that Threads isn’t a suitable replacement, then clearly there’s some criteria a replacement should meet. A lot of the things that make Threads unpalatable are also true of Bluesky, particularly if your concern relates to the platform being under the control of a corporation.

On the other hand, from the perspective of “Twitter 2.0 is now a toxic, alt-right cesspool where productive conversations can’t be had,” then both Threads and Bluesky are huge improvements.

[–] prex@aussie.zone 18 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Plus is gets the idea into people's heads that you aren't married to a platform.

[–] Klear@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

I wish, but I wager most people will immediately get married to Bluesky.

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

Supporting ActivityPub doesn't excuse being owned and operated by META.

Will Bsky eventually shit itself like Twitter did? Sure, maybe. That seems to be the normal path nowadays. And when it does, I've still got my Masto account that I try to keep active as well. But at the very least, Bsky is a different company. I can have a bsky account without being dragged into an entire META ecosystem designed to put their chosen content in front of my eyes.

Even at it's worst, the fact that Bsky is it's own thing and not owned by a mega corporation puts it automatically about Threads, regardless of ActivityPub.

[–] monk@lemmy.unboiled.info 1 points 1 week ago

If it needs a server to talk to others, that's already bad. If it needs a server, but it can be my server, it's palatable. That's all the criteria you need.

[–] tomi000@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Xitter wont die, it will just become even more of a far-right bubble for fake news and manipulation without resistance, just like Elon wants it to be.

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Trump will close his own shit down again or rebrand it to Truth X? 🤣

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It absolutely does. What happened to twitter could happen to a successor. The successor matters.

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Sure, but as you cannot know the future, it's a bit tricky to pick a successor you want to support based on that, instead of absolutely right-now-essential things such as "Where people actually are".

It's also important to keep in mind how long Twitter's run was: It was originally founded 18 years ago. I'd be okay if every 10-15 years I have to get a new Twitter, tbh. I buy a new phone every 4-5 years, a new car every 15-20, I'm alright. It's cheap to go onto a new Twitter, I'm far less resistant to change with that.

That is to say: Sure, maaaybe (again, can't truly know) Mastodon is superior on a technical level. But not only is that absolutely not how social media operates, and second it really doesn't matter if a sucessor also goes down in 10+ years. People won't be able to care any less if a successor lasts that long, and considering how quickly Mastodon has turned into a semi-ghost-town once Bluesky got big, I kinda know what I'd put my money onto.

Of course all of this ignores a central problem with the entire category of services: They don't conduct conversations well, even stuff like Misskey or Mastodon.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 32 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Well, there are some things wrong with it though?

It's possible to criticize both Mastodon and Bluesky for their respective issues

[–] GuyDudeman@lemmy.world 40 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The issue is that BlueSky is a for-profit company.

[–] ex_06@slrpnk.net 12 points 3 weeks ago

B-Corp. But as long as they don’t show any kind of sustainable business model compared to their costs, ye the result doesn’t differ much

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It’s possible to criticize both Mastodon and Bluesky for their respective issues

Sure, they're both Twitter-like and hence inherently unsuited to having a discussion for starters.

[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 weeks ago

Mastodon doesn't have low character limits, it's not terrible for having a conversation

[–] daltotron@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah this is kinda what I've never understood. We have these sorts of, complaints about the demographic movements of these platforms, sure, but their actual core structure is inherently optimized to prey on people's worst instincts, make discussion basically impossible. To prioritize pithy remarks and one-liners over productive conversations, they prioritize public facing ideologues blowing up much smaller individuals. Lemmy's slightly better in that regard, but I feel like we're always somehow descending in quality from what even a basic forum would be capable of.

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The problem is that bluesky pretends to be a fediverse platform but only as an aesthetic, the founders don't understand the fediverse at all and they have made no real attempt to federate outside of lip service.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 3 points 2 weeks ago

Fediverse is a specific type of federation.

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

Nothing is wrong with it as long as everyone realizes that it isn’t really resistant to enshittification as the network stands now and isn’t meaningfully federated or decentralized yet

[–] sibachian@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 weeks ago

what? so there's nothing wrong with centralized commercial services? please explain what's good about ANY centralized commercial service.

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Imo the fediverse should stay away from the Twitter format, following people is not a good way to do social media.

[–] aeshna_cyanea@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago

uhh could you clarify for me how the fediverse works? I thought it was like 90% mastodon which is very much the twitter format