I’m not the author, just sharing.
The main argument against bsky is that they’re still holding all of your data, unless you self host your own server.
I don’t actually see how Lemmy is much different. Most users are not self hosting on Lemmy either, you’re trusting your data to a 3rd party. The main difference seems to be that there’s much more centralisation on bsky.
I think it’s entirely reasonable to be wary of any service, be ready to delete your account if it goes to shit or whatever it is you need to do to feel safe.
But right now, I like blue sky. I’ve had far more positive interactions on there than I ever had on twitter (even before musk took it over), the lists feature that lets you pre-emptively block entire swathes of dickheads is a game changer (I just block one group, anyone Maga) and I’m having a good time.
I expect I’ll get downvoted for this but honestly I don’t care, the world has gone to shit far too much for me to give a crap about what internet strangers think over my own health and wellbeing and right now I’m having a good time and will not apologise for it.
The second that stops, I’ll be leaving bsky.
No, the main argument is that the main relay is, and for the foreseeable future will be operated by bluesky. This means that bluesky can decide what is and isn’t visible, but that’s not my biggest issue: to me the bigger problem is that bluesky sees everything that everyone says or thinks about anything.
Yes, it is possible to change. As TFA says:
But every counter-argument to the concerns above rests on the same foundation: technically, users can leave. Technically, you can self-host. Technically, you can run your own relay. The capability exists at every layer. But people don’t do these things. They never have with any protocol. Not email, not RSS, not XMPP. The default wins. Always.
It doesn’t matter that a few can be free: the vast majority goes where the lowest friction is because they have their life to live, and the lowest friction leads to the centralized bluesky
The main argument against bsky is that they’re still holding all of your data, unless you self host your own server.
That’s not the main argument against it. The main argument is that it’s not federated.
Bluesky is federated though. Like, you can selfhost every part of it and communicate with bsky users just fine: see wafrn and blacksky.
You can argue that it’s not decentralised because one instance has 99% of the users though
You’re right that the issue isn’t just trusting a third party in general, that’s how it is for most users on Lemmy or Mastodon too.
The difference isn’t whether you personally run a server. It’s whether the network depends on a single company.
Bluesky operating basically all of the infrastructure on that network means:
- they decide moderation policy and what content gets boosted or hidden for everyone
- they alone can change the rules for access and in general (ads, pay to be seen etc.)
- they can de-prioritize or cut off third-party infrastructure
- if the company fails, pivots or is pressured legally (I’m sure the current US government could never do such a thing), the network can effectively collapse
Here on Lemmy there is no single company that has all that power. If your admin goes bad there are real options to move to and the network will still exist even if they shut their service down. You also have much more leverage over here because you have those options and no operator is drawing in tens or hundreds of millions from investors who get to make the decisions.
I agree. But it’s a bit scary even for Lemmy, given that all the most active communities are currently hosted on the same 1 or 2 biggest instances.
Also, see what recently happened to LemmyNSFW…
I mean…yeah. The guy who created Bluesky is the same guy who created Twitter originally. What makes you think anything would be different? I’m honestly surprised they’re even humoring the idea of decentralization.
I really really REALLY don’t get people who leave one company turned bad to turn to another company trying the same thing.
They’ll be the good guys for sure!
He also left Bluesky in 2024 after it didn’t become the libertarian techbro wankfest he envisioned and was instead heavily populated by folks who didn’t want to slob Elon’s knob.
He publicly distanced himself but Bluesky’s ownership is very opaque and they do dishonest PR very well so I would not be at all surprised if Dorsey still owns a part of it.
And he fucked a potato after peeling it and putting it in a sandwich baggy!
Are you asking people to send you photos of that?
I do think the people behind it like the idea of data portability and decen, just not enough to compromise their business for it.
This seems to be the closest to a reasoned argument in this thread. Realistically, what should they be doing differently?
deleted by creator
I just facepalm internally whenever I see someone recommending bluesky on the fediverse.
I know I should stop holding them to a higher standard, but still.
Yeah, but it has a good UI and isn’t a massive echo chamber so what cha gonna do?
Normies just get screeched at by tankies and nerds and leave 🤷♂️
lol, how is it not a massive echo chamber when that has been the constant complaint in countless articles that keep getting made fun of instead of being taken seriously on Bluesky.
Because the most common people complaining about Bluesky fall into 1 of 2 groups:
People upset that Bluesky isn’t tolerating their behavior (mostly Nazis and transphobes angry about the community not letting it become Truth Social 2 or allowing transphobes to harass users, but also certain leftist groups, much like the tankies here on Lemmy)
People upset that the infrastructure isn’t FOSS or some similar complaint about it not being enough (purity test behavior like in every comment section on Lemmy)
And people saying that Bluesky is an echo chamber tend to fall very heavily into group 1.
It’s popularity had nothing to do with the protocol and making cries to such does nothing.
Make fediverse competitive client wise, and stop screeching at peoples in the center when they call Gavin progressive 🤷♂️. It’s not the tech that keeps people away, it’s the users.
With the fediverse it IS the tech. Lack of recommendation engines, and overall more sluggish experience compared to established social media does deter a lot of people away. Some things might change, but lot of stuff that makes social media better for most people is against what fediverse wants
Agreed. They’re both open on the internet and the data is in many repositories. Moot point (OPs’, not yours).
It obviously matters whether the data and control is mostly in one company’s hands, not just whether it is in “many repositories”.
Do you not get ‘open on the internet’? All the three letter agencies hoover the data up, your countries equivalents do as well, other companies. It’s only a bit in one companies hands, because it’s ‘open on the internet’, just like xitter, facebook, tiktok, their walled gardens don’t stop state level actors, just us plebs (a bit). That just leaves control (in real time), some power, some money there, but long term it’s the data that counts.
I don’t think you’re even talking about the points the article makes… You probably wouldn’t want them selling your data either but this is more about avoiding the kind of fate Twitter had.
The cries are about how Bluesky uses it and implements the required infrastructure, not the protocol itself.
I’ve run into people like that on Bluesky much more than on the fediverse. They do of course exist on both.
you mean the social network whose CEO told users to simply stop posting on their platform when she refused to ban a publicly known racist and transphob from the platform? that social network? The social network whose users decided segregating themselves was the best way to use said platform? that one?
Bluesky is a joke and its userbase are the punchline.
Bluesky is a joke and its userbase are the punchline.
Succinctly said, I love it
Pretty funny to see this here because this blog post seems like written with AI assistance (“it’s not just x, it’s y”, etc.) and also its author advocates for Nostr instead.
(“it’s not just x, it’s y”, etc.)
Keep in mind, the AIs learned from us. So that’s a thing in AI responses because humans use that structure. Same with em dashes.
Yes but in this specific case the author owns up to using Claude for “editing” of the blog entries.
Fair enough. I guess I’m just overly sensitive to the broad-strokes assumption that any given thing is an AI “smoking gun” since I’m an em dash user.
Not much substance to your comment… do you agree with it?
