Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

blog.paulbohm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 109 posts

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#51

Post by jrm4 »

bohm wrote: post #13
selectodude wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it’s closed source Mastodon?

I don't expect it to stay closed source. But there are significant differences to Mastodon. Just to give one example: Mastodon server admins actually can read your private messages. Also Blue Sky's approach to data portability and how to implement filtering/indexing is more developed. It might be personal preference, but I prefer AT Protocol's approach where the servers have less powers, and the users have more power…

Weird I haven't seen this idea:

Microblogging shouldn't have private messages. Let people have a profile and a link to an email address or similar and be done with it.

I'm not sure why a service designed to publicize things so that everyone can see them ALSO chooses to take on "private messages." I get that's how the big money incumbents see it, but I feel like less would be more here.

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#52

Post by jrm4 »

esskay wrote: post #33
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mastodon needs to at very least change its terminology if it ever wants to be taken seriously. As funny as it is for people to be "tooting" out whatever happens to be in their head in that very moment no one wants to be known as a "tooter" who "toots" frequently.

Tooting aside (it's a silly enough term as it is) Mastedons never going to go mainstream. It's too convoluted and complicated to explain how it works to someone with a moderate level of skill in IT, let alone your average every day person. "It's a decentralized social platform where you sign up to individual..." Yeah they're already asleep. The average person doesn't give a damn about that, and they sure as hell aren…

"It's Twitter, but set up like email where you have multiple servers, but they can all talk to each other"

That wasn't very hard at all.

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#53

Post by Wojtkie »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #49
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered that maybe de-plaforming people on the fringe and forcing them into their own private silos actually ends up boosting their message? When you try to be the goody two-shoes and block anything and everything that could potentially be offensive to someone you just make controversial opinions more intriguing. At least I want to see what the big fuss was about and determine myself it such banishment wa…

> When you try to be the goody two-shoes and block anything and everything that could potentially be offensive to someone This is intentionally trivializing the actual approach and making it seem as arbitrary and low impact as possible. I certainly wouldn't support a ban on "everything that could potentially be offensive" and I haven't seen a proposal for one. I do support a ban on violent far right extremist movemen…

[dead]

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#54

Post by Shared404 »

esskay wrote: post #33
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mastodon needs to at very least change its terminology if it ever wants to be taken seriously. As funny as it is for people to be "tooting" out whatever happens to be in their head in that very moment no one wants to be known as a "tooter" who "toots" frequently.

Tooting aside (it's a silly enough term as it is) Mastedons never going to go mainstream. It's too convoluted and complicated to explain how it works to someone with a moderate level of skill in IT, let alone your average every day person. "It's a decentralized social platform where you sign up to individual..." Yeah they're already asleep. The average person doesn't give a damn about that, and they sure as hell aren…

> Mastedons never going to go mainstream. It's too convoluted and complicated to explain how it works to someone with a moderate level of skill in IT, let alone your average every day person.

Email's never going to go mainstream. It's too convoluted and complicated to explain how it works to someone with a moderate level of skill in IT, let alone your average every day person.

"It's a decentralized communication platform where you sign up to individual..."

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#56

Post by Entinel »

jrm4 wrote: post #51
bohm wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't expect it to stay closed source. But there are significant differences to Mastodon. Just to give one example: Mastodon server admins actually can read your private messages. Also Blue Sky's approach to data portability and how to implement filtering/indexing is more developed. It might be personal preference, but I prefer AT Protocol's approach where the servers have less powers, and the users have more power…

Weird I haven't seen this idea: Microblogging shouldn't have private messages. Let people have a profile and a link to an email address or similar and be done with it. I'm not sure why a service designed to publicize things so that everyone can see them ALSO chooses to take on "private messages." I get that's how the big money incumbents see it, but I feel like less would be more here.

I'm fine getting private messages on platforms but I do not want to put out my email for the general public to contact me. That information is also far more dangerous to put out than just messaging me on a platform. Yes you could just create an email for that purpose but I feel most people won't do that.

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#57

Post by s3krit »

jrm4 wrote: post #52
esskay wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tooting aside (it's a silly enough term as it is) Mastedons never going to go mainstream. It's too convoluted and complicated to explain how it works to someone with a moderate level of skill in IT, let alone your average every day person. "It's a decentralized social platform where you sign up to individual..." Yeah they're already asleep. The average person doesn't give a damn about that, and they sure as hell aren…

"It's Twitter, but set up like email where you have multiple servers, but they can all talk to each other" That wasn't very hard at all.

'what's a server?'

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#58

Post by notjulianjaynes »

s3krit wrote: post #57
jrm4 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's Twitter, but set up like email where you have multiple servers, but they can all talk to each other" That wasn't very hard at all.

'what's a server?'

Is this actually a problem? I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people who use the internet have a good enough idea of what a server is that even if they're dead wrong about how one works it isn't terminology that would be confusing to them.

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#59

Post by manuelmoreale »

Shared404 wrote: post #54
esskay wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tooting aside (it's a silly enough term as it is) Mastedons never going to go mainstream. It's too convoluted and complicated to explain how it works to someone with a moderate level of skill in IT, let alone your average every day person. "It's a decentralized social platform where you sign up to individual..." Yeah they're already asleep. The average person doesn't give a damn about that, and they sure as hell aren…

> Mastedons never going to go mainstream. It's too convoluted and complicated to explain how it works to someone with a moderate level of skill in IT, let alone your average every day person. Email's never going to go mainstream. It's too convoluted and complicated to explain how it works to someone with a moderate level of skill in IT, let alone your average every day person. "It's a decentralized communication plat…

Email had a real world counterpart. In that sense it was easier to explain because you could start from traditional mail and use that to explain emails.

Mastodon and its relationship with the fediverse is indeed complicated to grasp.

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#60

Post by dmonitor »

polygamous_bat wrote: post #14
bohm wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't expect it to stay closed source. But there are significant differences to Mastodon. Just to give one example: Mastodon server admins actually can read your private messages. Also Blue Sky's approach to data portability and how to implement filtering/indexing is more developed. It might be personal preference, but I prefer AT Protocol's approach where the servers have less powers, and the users have more power…

I would imagine Twitter server admins can also read your private messages if they really wanted to since Twitter doesn't use E2E encryption. Am I unaware of something/Is there a reason to believe differently?

With Twitter, I can at least assume the admins don't give a fuck about the average user. On Mastodon, an admin will be serving far fewer users and might actually be motivated to snoop on someone they know.
Post reply on HN