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

Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

chrisholdgraf.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 561 posts

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#341

Post by paride5745 »

BeetleB wrote: post #186
dsr_ wrote: post #16

>“you’re telling me there’s a @choldgraf@hachyderm.io and a @choldgraf@mastodon.social and they’re two different people?!” Yes, and choldgraf@gmail.com and choldgraf@ibm.com are different email-people, too. This is not a hard concept.

This was the weakest point of the whole article, particularly because Mastodon and Bluesky are identical in this respect. The reason he doesn't realize it is that almost everyone is on the same instance. So yes, you will have: @stephenking.bsky.social and @stephenking.bsky.otherinstance Unless Bluesky remains a single server, in which case it's not at all decentralized.

It’s already exactly the same problem.

@zuck.bsky.app

and

@zuck.meta.com

are two different accounts.

The only “problem” bsky solves is choosing a server. But if ATProto becomes widely used, the problem will appear as in Mastodon today. The only way to avoid it is for bsky to never become really decentralised. So yet another VC-backed social media company.

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#342

Post by defrahh »

josteink wrote: post #324

My interest for bluesky is practically non-existent as long as they ban people for posting commonly held views and scientific facts. I’m not going to invest in a platform where fear of banning is a thing from the get go.

Even worse, they don't ban the users sending death threats and other threats of extreme violence - as Jesse Singal discusses in this article:

https://www.thefp.com/p/jesse-singal-bluesky-has-a-death-thr...

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#343

Post by rswail »

cglong wrote: post #330
maelito wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is no reason to offer a valuable feature for free. Well that's of course OK with me : Bluesky should make their users pay. 10 % of users paying 1€/month, 1 % paying 10 €/month, for instance. That's ok, we're paying a service. But the API access and federation should remain free.

I keep seeing people say BlueSky should be a paid service, but X gets mocked ruthlessly for this.

What X gets mocked for is that the feature of being "verified" by Twitter was worth paying for. But X turned the "blue tick" into "this person has paid" which totally removed any value for the blue tick.

It was yet another self-own, along with things like getting promoted on the feed.

X could have made money by selling features (eg tweetdeck) and other useful things, but they didnt.

Of course, then politcally it became a "this person is a MAGA person" so Musk had to start handing out "free" blue ticks to big accounts to avoid that appearance. To the point that people were putting in their name "didn't pay for blue"

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#344

Post by nunobrito »

Would be interesting to ask the author for a review of NOSTR afterwards.

At NOSTR the account functions without servers, you get private keys that certify your messages as yours no matter where or when you post them.

From that perspective there isn't a private castle since you can send your messages to any of the several hundred relays existing today. It isn't VC funded but doesn't really cater to woke people and there isn't moderation of any kind.

You follow what you want to read, you can't even block others from writing on your texts. At most you can only ignore their writings.

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#345

Post by SiempreViernes »

fuzztester wrote: post #334
dingaling wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only dream that it triggers meetings with security. I once started receiving spam addressed to @ .org and after several instances I reported it to MyBankName. I explained that I only used that address in my dealings with them and so it must have leaked from them. They said that's not how email works, you have one address that you use with all your contacts. One of them must have leaked it. I tried to explain th…

why didn't you close the account instead, after transferring your balance, to send them a stronger message?

Sounds like the sort of bank that only allow closure to be requested via fax certain months.

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#346

Post by lupusreal »

aSanchezStern wrote: post #144
glimshe wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Openness",as far as for-profit businesses are concerned, is a marketing strategy. Once enough users are locked in, there is no reason to offer a valuable feature for free.

You're assuming that every for profit business is entirely devoid of morality. This was not true under the Keynesian compromise of the 20th century, and is not true of every business today. Just because people are sometimes selfish doesn't mean they never have any principles.

The people who work at companies are usually not devoid of morality. Even the people who own the companies, the people on the board, the people who are the executives, are not usually devoid of morality. But insofar as the company is an organization of people rather than a person itself, it is devoid of morality. Organizations of people are not people, they are meta-organisms that have different ways of "thinking" and operating than the individual humans they are comprised of. Don't anthropomorphize these things, they aren't capable of morality in the same way that a bear isn't. If ever it behaves in a way that seems moral, that's not because it actually is.

The more people who are involved in the decision making apparatus of an organization, not just at the top but throughout the entire net, the less human you know it is. If the entire company consists of a single person, it is a person and not an organization. But if a company consists merely of one owner/operator with one employee below them that tells the other things and is told things, the product of those two becomes less than human and may make decisions that neither of the two humans would approve of if they had the complete picture of what was going on. The larger the organization grows, the worse this problem becomes.

This isn't only true of companies, but any group of people. Groups of people are not themselves people.

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#348

Post by glandium »

rswail wrote: post #339
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even giving them "email+their-business@gmail.com" (instead of email@gmail.com), as every single Gmail user is able to do, will no doubt sow confusion.

I always allocate an email of my+company@myemail.com and the number of email validators that don't accept that "+" is a legit email character is infuriating.

That's why I've updated my SMTP config to handle - the same way as + 10+ years ago. And to avoid "why is my business name in your email?" questions, I rot13 it.

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#350

Post by SiempreViernes »

> communities have to do a lot more work to understand the idiosyncratic policies of each server

[links to a github issue that is 90% internal project bureocracy, 10% "didn't read the terms"].

I think this is actually another instance of the "people don't actually want to pay for choice": the moderation policies for the big social sites are just incomprehensible, but you don't have any agency over them if you use the sites, which is simple.

On Mastodon you do get to choose what moderation you subject yourself to (to some extent), but obviously making that choice requires work since there are real differences.

Post reply on HN