Bluesky signups are now open to the public • Hacker News Board

Re: Bluesky signups are now open to the public

#281

Post by treyd » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 10:44 PM UTC

AgentME wrote: post #259

kibwen wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can if the server is operational. And if Bluesky's servers stop being operational? Where is your data hosted?

If you or someone else has an archive of your data, then you can seamlessly port your account somewhere else. With Mastodon, I'm not sure there's an established flow for downloading your full account data, and you have to have your old server cooperate and redirect your user page to your page on your new server.

Yes there is an established flow for exporting your full account data. It comes as an easy export zip and CSVs.

Re: Bluesky signups are now open to the public

#282

Post by treyd » Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 4:33 AM UTC

Kinrany wrote: post #104

shafyy wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm more worried about the financing of Bluesky. You have taken VC money, and we all know what that means - growth at all costs. > The protocol is also designed not to require trust. The network is being "locked open" in a way that would allow it to survive Bluesky becoming evil. I feel like we have seen this movie play out a few times. There are always way to close things down the road. For example, I can imagine th…

> There are always way to close things down the road. If nothing else, Bitcoin is a successful existence proof. Maintaining control may be easier, but it's safe to say that Satoshi wouldn't be able to take control back now.

Bluesky is not structured the way Bitcoin was structured. It's nonsensical to make prescriptive statements based on that comparison.

Re: Bluesky signups are now open to the public

#283

Post by luplex » Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 11:13 AM UTC

pests wrote: post #253

delecti wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incidentally that's also a big part of why the people running the site don't like the name, and why the users do.

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 want to live in a world where "Twitter" is a category name, and X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Threads etc. are simply examples of twitters. And you can tweet on all of them.

Re: Bluesky signups are now open to the public

#284

Post by 0x006A » Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 1:28 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #278

smoothjazz wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

do you have an example of a platform that does not require a phone number for sms verification and is filled with bots? we have many that use sms verification and are infested with abusive content and bots.