[flagged]
Please don't take HN threads into ideological flamewar, or any flamewar. That's what we're trying to avoid here.
Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again
301–310 of 561 posts
Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again
#302[flagged]
[flagged]
Please don't take HN threads further into ideological flamewar, or any flamewar. That's what we're trying to avoid here.
Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again
#303[flagged]
[flagged]
Please don't take HN threads further into ideological flamewar, or any flamewar. That's what we're trying to avoid here.
Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again
#304Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's my biggest issue with it. I didn't even have twitter to begin with, but after trying out Bluesky I've barely had the patience to use it. Most people on there seem to be ultra-left wing virtue signalling phychopaths. It's obnoxiously progressive with no space for nuanced thought.
[flagged]
OR… I wonder if there could be some alternative?
Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because that's not possible it isn't? I'm not aware of any relay servers being run but the AT protocol makes affordances for this functionality. Are those features a lie? I read the protocol specification only a few weeks ago, perhaps this is new? You're correct that the grandparent's PDS isn't the same as a Mastodon homeserver but that's probably a good thing; the network functions much differently than the Activi…
To my knowledge you can't run your own self-contained Bluesky server/network that doesn't go through (or at least partially rely on) services owned/operated by the Bluesky corporation. > A world of full self-hosting is not possible with Bluesky. In fact, it is worse than the storage requirements, because the message delivery requirements become quadratic at the scale of full decentralization: to send a message to one…
Not true. Everything made by BlueSky is open source, including the apps.
Anyone can host their own data.
Bluesky has said they have zero intention on opening advertising because the platform isn’t built for that paradigm.
No investor or potential buyer would get ROI from an open network. If they tried, anyone could open a new public good atproto network and users could easily migrate their data.
The very thing that gave Twitter value was it owned all its data. Bluesky does not own anyone’s data. They just host it.
Bluesky has a new crypto investor with a board seat, but there are no signs the investor has made any demands.
I think Bluesky will beat the odds.
Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I feel like there's a lot of appealing to prevailing HN sentiment in this post. So much so that there's little substance. IMO, there was plenty of substance, on things a lot of HNers either don't realize, or disregard. > that there stops being concrete actionable complaints and more just general anger. Good point in general (and ironic, since that too is a tired, pervasive condition that somehow still needs pointin…
To be clear: I'm not talking about TFA. I'm talking about OP. TFA had substance for sure. But the OP just vaguely talks about taking VC money. This is distinctive because the AT Protocol exists to specifically prevent the degradation that VC does. So I'm curious what about Bluesky and the AT Protocol are of concern here that VC capture could affect. That's why I linked Christine Lemmer-Webber's post. > If want to ver…
what about Bluesky and the AT Protocol are of concern here that VC capture could affect
Is BlueSky linking and federating with other privately run ATProto servers yet, so posts are shared between them and it actually becomes decentralized?
Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mastodon is absolutely not dead, and will outlast both Twitter and Bluesky as far as I can tell -- as someone who has been an early adopter in every single social media platform (or precursor thereof) since the mid-90's. Why? There isn't some top-down capitalistic motive to destroy the platform. It will continue to exist, because it is a protocol defined/evolved by the community with zero incentive for profitability…
> Mastodon is absolutely not dead, It sucks though, I don't know ONE normal person who's on Mastodon.
I don't know one normal person who's on Hacker News either