Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again
351–360 of 561 posts
Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again
#352In moving to Mastodon from X a few years ago, I didn't want my content to be owned by a platform, but I also just don't have it in my to write blog posts, posting threads bit by bit works better for my brain.
So my solution was to write a script that took that any thread I start with a certain hashtag in it, and threadreader-style mirror it to a basic HTML page on my own website[0]. That way, if my Mastodon account ever goes away, all the threads I actually put any effort into are preserved.
[0] https://kalleboo.com/microblog/ I'm intro retrotech so this site is designed/constructed so aside from the videos it works fine on a Mac with a 25 MHz 68040 CPU. All the data is stored in a big JSON file so I can re-format it whenever I want.
Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again
#353(hint: not that decentralized after all)
Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again
#354My 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.
Can you give an example? It sounds like you have something specific in mind.
Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again
#355Earlier 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.
Twitter launched a paid tier, Twitter Blue, before the Musk takeover. It was a sensible move, offering additional features such as edit functionality for power users, but not harming the experience for those who chose not to buy into it.
Most importantly, it was entirely separate to the use of blue ticks to denote verified and authentic accounts. In fact, there was as far as I know no visual indication that someone was a Twitter Blue user.
When Musk took over, one of his first changes was to combine Twitter Blue and the verified programme, removing any actual verification in favour of a claim that anyone who had paid was 'verified'. The company also artificially boosts the posts of those who have bought this new premium tier, which disadvantages everyone else.
Buying a blue tick is seen, quite rightly now, as buying an artificial boosting via the algorithm and that's just pure vanity.
Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 beca…
But they did. Nobody pays for X premium just to get a blue tick. Being verified I guess is part of it, but they're paying to get other things including less ads, Grok access, longer posts & videos, communities, media studio, monetization, and other things.
Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That's clever. But doesn't it cause friction when trying to relay the address e.g. over the phone?
Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again
#358Sure, it's true at some point that the Platform could, for whatever reason, decide it would rather suck you dry than continue the symbiotic relationship, that does happen.
But here's the core of the problem - by putting yourself half out of the platform, trying to direct people off to your own website, by gating your content etc. You are damaging the platform. All that massive surplus that is created by having everyone in one place sharing in one common way? It won't exist if you're not participating in it.
I can open a shop in the centre of london. I'm going to pay high rents, but I'm also going to gain massive benefits from all the people in London who can come and buy stuff from my shop. It's a win for everyone. You're going to open a shop in the centre of London and when someone walks in the front door you're going to say "Oh well here's all the stuff I sell, but to actually buy it you need to come visit my farm in Norfolk". You see how this doesn't make sense right?
And laying aside whether you should do this, any platform that wants to survive is going to massively penalize your behaviour because you're freeloading, you're damaging the platform. You want surplus but you don't want to let anyone else benefit.
Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#360Related : Corey Doctrow's article (again) about how he doesn't trust Bluesky enough to move there from mastodon. Especially Bluesky's promise to allow users to migrate to another host in the fediverse. https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2024-11-02... Older article : https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/06/fool-me-twice-we-dont-get...