Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reading this I hear someone passionate about technology for the sake of technology. Which is cool, I totally get the desire to build things oneself, but it doesn't really address the substantive questions people are asking about AT: An open protocol exists that broadly does what you want to do. That protocol is stable and widely used. That in itself, regardless of the quality of the protocol, already represents an OK…
> If you're going to go NIH your replacement needs to not just be better but substantially better, and you should also show understanding of the original open spec. I just disagree with this in principle. I wonder what the tech equivalent of "laissez faire" would be. To this day I don't understand how anyone in the tech world thinks they can make a single demand of anyone else. Even as a customer I believe you can re…
Ultimately, yes you're right, no-one can make actual "demands" of anyone else. My language above is demanding, certainly, but ultimately I'm just arguing opinion. I cannot control any outcomes of what Bluesky or any other enterprise choose to pursue.
> What is it about this specific area of the web that attracts these idealogical zealots?
I think it stems from the unprecedented success of such zealots in the 1980s, which have differentiated the technological landscape of software technologies from previous areas of engineering by making them more approachable, accessible, interoperable and ultimately democratised. That's largely been the result of people arguing passionately on the internet to advocate for that level of openness, collab & interop.