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

Bluesky signups are now open to the public

bsky.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 284 posts

Re: Bluesky signups are now open to the public

#271

Post by timeon »

kevinmchugh wrote: post #256
pests wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what's worse, this or toots. Can't we admit Twitter had the perfect name for it, and now that twitter is gone, we can all just call them tweets? Its almost absurd. Like if phone companies decided to brand text messages and someone got to "Texts" first so companies came up with "Blurts" and "Yells" or "Phonomails" and now we use a different verb based on which walled-garden we are in. edit: In thinking on…

I really think "tweeting" worked to make it seem more normal and less serious than "posting", which is the brandless term X and Bluesky (the companies, not the communities) both prefer. Posting is for forums and forums are for nerds. I harbor some hope that Elon will firesale off the trademark on "tweet" and someone can put it to good use

> Posting is for forums and forums are for nerds.

But at the end of the day it is still just post on the internet forum.

Re: Bluesky signups are now open to the public

#272

Post by jijijijij »

taco_emoji wrote: post #194
jakebsky wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've announced one business model and do intend to iterate and add others, but that's all we've announced for now. The plan is definitely to be sustainable over the long-term.

Honestly this is fucking whacko to me. "We've incorporated a legal entity whose entire purpose is to make money, but we have no idea how that's going to happen." How is this even allowed? Anyway the answer is ads. This just means it's going to be ads. It's always fucking ads. No one has ever gone into a capitalistic venture sans business plan and ended up doing anything besides selling fucking ads.

> "We've incorporated a legal entity whose entire purpose is to make money, but we have no idea how that's going to happen."

That's quite the reach. The actual information you got, is them not telling you publicly. Either because they can't, or don't want to.

I mean, I do sympathize with your frustration, tho. Every time I read this lobotomized "Rampart-AMA" PR shit, a few of my own brain cells commit suicide. It's insulting.

Re: Bluesky signups are now open to the public

#273

Post by remram »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #211
coldpie wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The obvious question is what your business model is. I know about your "we plan to sell domains" post from a bit ago[1], but that seems... optimistic, to me. Not sure I want to buy into yet another startup with no business model (e.g. Keybase). [1] https://bsky.social/about/blog/7-05-2023-business-plan

On the other hand, Jack Dorsey has proven himself as someone who can be very successful founding a large microblogging social network with no business model.

Twitter was always going to show ads, whether that would suffice or not was the question. Memberships were also an obvious move. There is no obvious move for Bluesky, an open federated network.

Re: Bluesky signups are now open to the public

#275

Post by jacooper »

lnxg33k1 wrote: post #21
the_duke wrote: post #11

I feel like this would have been a lot more impactful a year ago, when the Twitter drama was in full swing. Feedback: the homepage looks more like a tech product pitch site, and the announcement post also doesn't look very polished. I guess the target for Bluesky isn't so much the "regular Facebook/Twitter/IG user", more the nerd. Side question: what's the interop story between Bluesky and Mastodon now?

I am not sure, during the Twitter drama was in full swing Meta tried to launch an alternative, and how long did it last? A couple of weeks? I think social sector is filled, with boomers on facebook, cool people on instagram, kids on tiktok, woke on twitter, meme people on reddit?

Well to be fair it was very half baked and it was really anti Twitter, it was just Instagram in text, which exactly what twitter users don't want.

Re: Bluesky signups are now open to the public

#276

Post by remram »

jakebsky wrote: post #41
marxisttemp wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not use ActivityPub? Why should we trust Dorsey again? What is one good reason to use Bluesky over Mastodon?

1. "Account portability is the major reason why we chose to build a separate protocol. We consider portability to be crucial because it protects users from sudden bans, server shutdowns, and policy disagreements." https://atproto.com/guides/faq 2. Jack Dorsey is on the board but has no day-to-day role in the company. Jay Graber is the CEO of Bluesky and is in control. The protocol is also designed not to require trus…

We'll see whether you release portability before Mastodon. Right now, bsky.social seems to be the only place anyone can get an account, subject to your verification requirements (and there are people in the comments here that can't sign up), so you're multiple steps away from porting anything.

Re: Bluesky signups are now open to the public

#277

Post by MadcapJake »

tqi wrote: post #267
radlad wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, so I'll explain further. Currently, if you want to be part of a social network, your options are to opt-in to Zuckerberg's moderation or Musk's moderation. It would be great if these were _actually_ opt-in (as in, you can be part of a social network without opting in to their moderation polices) and if you can use anyone's "moderation list." I think ultimately this would…

It's interesting that 10 years ago there was a media driven panic about "filter bubbles", and now we are at a point where the abilitiy to choose your own filter bubble is considered a feature.

You missed the middle: the collective realization that socializing is not a public activity, it's bubbles all the way down. No one wants vitriolic arguments outside of debate club...

Re: Bluesky signups are now open to the public

#278

Post by pc86 »

smoothjazz wrote: post #119
pc86 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having good tools to increase the quality of your network doesn't mean you should willingly let the whole network decline in quality.

You assume that requiring a phone number increases quality instead of decreases it. I see it as a filter to keep thoughtful people off the platform.

Let's say you just eliminate the requirement altogether. What percentage of non-phone number signups are going to be "thoughtful people" compared to bots?

Sure you'll get people who refuse to sign up with a real phone number, that's a given. Some percentage of those people will be "thoughtful." You'll also eliminate a huge number of bots, automated signups, etc.

It's hard to argue letting all those bots on will not decrease system quality.

Re: Bluesky signups are now open to the public

#279

Post by radlad »

cdchn wrote: post #263
radlad wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, so I'll explain further. Currently, if you want to be part of a social network, your options are to opt-in to Zuckerberg's moderation or Musk's moderation. It would be great if these were _actually_ opt-in (as in, you can be part of a social network without opting in to their moderation polices) and if you can use anyone's "moderation list." I think ultimately this would…

Ultimately is what you end up with is being held under some instance operator's even more capricious, arbitrary and biases moderation "policy." Although I think calling it a policy might be a bit generous.

This is exactly why I love the promise of moderation lists (as opposed to "choosing an instance.")
Post reply on HN