Yea ... it's sort of a lens for me as I view/critique the actions and decisions of people building alt-social ... this stuff is hard and fragile but also important ... so not fucking around with it kinda matters (to me at least).

The hate toward BlueSky from mastodon/AP people, for example, is misguided I think. The, IMO, general lack of concern for inter-platform interop across the fediverse bothers me too, where I ask whether a platform is being a good "fediverse citizen". And some of the "cultural purity through vigilance" culture out of the mastodon/microblogging crowd is, IMO, short sighted.

A common thread being a readiness for negative behaviour and effects rather than building and supporting.

[–] drone509@social.tchncs.de 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

@maegul @missingno
I don't hate Bluesky, but I am pretty suspicious. I was a pretty avid user of Facebook messenger when it was using XMPP, through pidgin and other clients. They rugpulled me and my friends, when it became more profitable to keep it in their walled garden. Bluesky seems like it could easily head the same direction.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago

Suspicion is totally fair re BlueSky IMO. The system they’ve design seems to me (and others AFAICT) to have the potential to include interconnected components or sections with various degrees of independence.

The elephant in the room, which I point out on BlueSky whenever I can, is that no one seems to really be trying to build the hard parts of that out. Which is a shame because it could be interesting.

EG, there’s a chance that a hybridised system running both BlueSky’s protocol and the fediverse’s could be viable and quite useful. Add to that the integration with some E2EE, and it finally feels like an actual attempt at building something new for the modern internet.

Fortunately there is some noise around these ideas, so hopefully their system can outlast their finances. But yea, a rug pull is definitely not out of the question.

load more comments (17 replies)