Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again • Hacker News Board

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#491

Post by rsynnott » Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 4:16 PM UTC

rchaud wrote: post #489

rsynnott wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter managed without banning alternative clients for 16 years, right up until the advent of Naughty Old Mr Car. (They did vaguely try once, but there was such a backlash that they backed off.)

They did not manage, they made losses every single quarter but one.

Not sure where you got that one; they were net profitable for two full years at least. They were generally FCF-positive, and could have reached paper profitability fairly easily at the cost of reducing spending (though their shareholders likely wouldn’t have liked that; the markets like to see smallish tech companies spending what they take in, not paying a dividend, as a general rule).

Twitter was not a massively lucrative company, but the idea that it was financially near death is a myth.

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#492

Post by iteratethis » Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 4:18 PM UTC

simonw wrote: post #120

grumbel wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mastodon isn't true decentralization to begin with, it's just federation like email, where every user is attached to a server and the server operator holds all the power, while the user holds none. I find that approach a waste of time, as it's just replicating past mistakes verbatim. On top of that, the whole Fediverse is extremely political. Email providers don't care much what you write or with whom you communicate…

"every user is attached to a server and the server operator holds all the power, while the user holds none" So run your own server.

This doesn't solve the problem. One "wrong" word and instance mods cut your ties.

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#493

Post by rchaud » Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 4:18 PM UTC

ChocolateGod wrote: post #92

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they have a right to free speech, but when I'm choosing a platform it's the user experience that matters to me and not the rights of the operators. Twitter lets me visit or follow any other account on the platform and see what they have to say, and the ability to do that across a wide range of interests and viewpoints is exactly why I use it. If Mastodon requires setting up a custom server to replicate that…

Look at how many instances agreed to block Threads even before it added ActivityPub support because Mark Zuckerberg doesn't ban (legal) opinions and comments he doesn't agree with. Some people are so insecure about their own opinions that the pure idea that someone exists that might not agree the same is a threat, never mind seeing their content.

Mastodon.social is the single largest instance and does not block Threads. Where did you get this information, and furthermore, how did you manage to draw a line from that to "Zuck supports free speech, Mastodon doesn't like that?"

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#494

Post by SkyBelow » Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 4:21 PM UTC

meowster wrote: post #169

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You'll be surprised how many people think they can just use first.lastname@gmail.com and have email magically appear in their account. Since I like surprises, do tell ... how many people think that?

At least 6 with my not-that-common (maybe somewhere in the middle) first and last name combination. Maybe more, but at least six of the emails meant for others that I've received, implied they live at those six unique locations. I know one of them likes to get the vegetarian meal option when traveling internationally by plane. (Companies should really validate email address OWNERSHIP before spamming innocent people.)

Now that I think about it, I don't think I've ever seen an email verification flow that works in reverse, where the email owner sends the email instead. Seems it would be easy enough to say "Send an email from your indicated account with to ." I'm assuming the flow is different enough that it would lead to losing people who decide not to follow through but who would have continued with the 'normal' setup. It would also train users to send their MFA pins to others which would be a net negative for anyone using the normal verification process.

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#495

Post by Spivak » Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 4:30 PM UTC

haswell wrote: post #392

Spivak wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you can really decide whether something is a useful signal or not. I don't and can't assume anything about an individual because they follow Evil McBaddington. But the fun thing about statistics is I that I can assume a great many things about the set of all people who follow Evil McBaddington. I see this "scale invariant fallacy" all the time with programmers. The forward direction being a thing and th…

> I don't think you can really decide whether something is a useful signal or not. I don't and can't assume anything about an individual because they follow Evil McBaddington. Maybe I misunderstood your comment, but isn’t that exactly the opposite of what you’re saying here? > Who a person follows is a pretty strong signal of their values If your position is closer to “on average, people who follow other people tend…

> If your position is closer to “on average, people who follow other people tend to be more aligned with the people they follow”

Maybe it's a semantic thing but is that not what is meant by this usage of the word signal?

"A child growing up in an affluent neighborhoods is a strong signal of their future success." implies => "The proportion of the set of all kids who live in affluent neighborhoods who achieve success as adults is high."

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#496

Post by shwouchk » Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 4:37 PM UTC

sangnoir wrote: post #313

shwouchk wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand this, but you seem to have ignored my point in that it is trivially easy to make something similar for email and yet no one did, and that it is unclear what’s to stop the same situation from happening again when 90% of users have a lemmy.org or whatever address. Or like happened with the original decentralized web. there was once a thing called a “blog” that you could host on your own server from your ho…

I failed to respond simply because I didn't realize you were making that point. To me, the existence of large players in a decentralized system is not something in need of addressing or fixing; IMO, decentralization is not the right tool to achieve egalitarianism - but it's a great way to avoid a monoculture. The fediverse, like email and most other human systems that benefit from economies of scale will have a Paret…

decentralization is not some magical binary property. Real world systems can be more, or less, decentralized.

To start with, yes banking giants exists but everyone finds this undesirable to a certain extent and regulators would object if suddenly eg elon musk decided to buy out goldman and chase.

banks are highly regulated and enjoy completely different economies than email. Banks of the same nation are often legally required to be interoperable with others. Yes, there are still big players and you can eg get sanctioned by the US - which is why BRIC countries are working on alternative banking networks.

with banks, most jurisdictions would disallow a merger of two large banks specifically from decentralization considerations - guess what would happen if two email providers merge? exactly nothing.

With email, if gmail decide to ban you, you are unable to communicate with 90% of people with no recourse. A support engineer can decide to ban you on a whim and besides crying on social media, you can’t do much.

With banks, you need a large and powerful nation to tell other banks not to play with you, and you can contest this decision legally.

Most importantly, with banking money is the product and every transaction brings revenue, so there’s a strong incentive to cooperate. With email - and AP - cooperation incurs a cost on all parties instead and benefits are distributed and vague in monetary terms.

Finally, banks are required to deal with you as a customer - provided you meet certain requirements. An email provider can ban you for no reason and your only recourse is arbitration.

Compare to bitcoin. Will you still be calling it decentralized when one pool controls 90% of compute (i don’t think this can really happen tbh as there are disincentives to go 51% without abusing the network)?

Don’t get me wrong AP sure feels in the right direction compared to eg FB. Just on the principle of being able to run it completely in your own. However it would be nice if whatever new alternative that grew popular treated users, rather than providers, democratically.

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#497

Post by louthy » Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 4:49 PM UTC

GlacierFox wrote: post #76

capl wrote: post #61

Biggest issue is the lack of free speech. It’s a platform with an agenda, which is a huge red flag.

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.

So, to be clear, the GP was stating that their issue is a lack of free speech. You agree that that’s your biggest issue with Bluesky too.

But you’re unhappy with people expressing their personal opinions, primarily because you don’t agree with them?

What version of free-speech is it that you want? I assume it’s just like all ‘free speech absolutioniats’: free speech as long as it’s your own or from people you agree with.

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#498

Post by stiltzkin » Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 4:57 PM UTC

[dead]

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#499

Post by stiltzkin » Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 4:58 PM UTC

soneca wrote: post #11

I understand a blog on your own domain is your land in regard to microblogging platforms. But what would be my land in regard to community software, like Telegram or Discord? Is there any software like this that I can host on my domain?

[dead]

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#500

Post by haswell » Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 5:08 PM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #495

haswell wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think you can really decide whether something is a useful signal or not. I don't and can't assume anything about an individual because they follow Evil McBaddington. Maybe I misunderstood your comment, but isn’t that exactly the opposite of what you’re saying here? > Who a person follows is a pretty strong signal of their values If your position is closer to “on average, people who follow other people tend…

> If your position is closer to “on average, people who follow other people tend to be more aligned with the people they follow” Maybe it's a semantic thing but is that not what is meant by this usage of the word signal? "A child growing up in an affluent neighborhoods is a strong signal of their future success." implies => "The proportion of the set of all kids who live in affluent neighborhoods who achieve success…

That’s not how I read your use of signal in the broader context.

Putting people on lists for who they follow is a growing trend and it’s pretty clear in Bluesky culture that many people actually believe following someone implies some kind of support for that person and “taints” the follower somehow. This goes alongside a host of problematic behaviors ranging from all-or-nothing thinking “if you’re not with us you’re against us” to simple bad faith.

My goal isn’t to argue here, but to understand and clarify what you meant.

It sounds like you didn’t literally mean that on an individual basis, following someone strongly indicates their values, but that in the aggregate (due to the current social climate), it’s more likely they won’t follow people they disagree with.

I don’t think this is just a matter of semantics given the context, but a necessary clarification.

In the affluent neighborhoods example, there’s no call to action (block people), the situation isn’t a highly charged issue in the cultural zeitgeist, and there aren’t a lot of reasons someone would interpret that example in some other way.

The same is not true for the current social media climate.