←back to thread

Maybe Bluesky has "won"

(anderegg.ca)
461 points GavinAnderegg | 7 comments | 15 Nov 24 19:56 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
llm_nerd ◴[15 Nov 24 20:33 UTC] No.42150659[source]▶
Whatever one's feelings about these microblogging services, one truth that has become clear is that none of them -- X, Bluesky, Threads, or anything similar -- should be considered "the commons". They're private businesses with their own motives that are often in complete conflict with your own.

A lot of people made the mistake of treating Twitter like a commons and have been burned. My local police force posts all notices about traffic, missing people, foiled crimes, etc., on Twitter out of inertia. That is wholly inappropriate, and wasn't appropriate even when before it become some brain-worm infected oligarch's rhetoric megaphone. The same goes for many organizations, politicians, and so on. It was never the right choice. And the solution to one bad choice isn't to move to the same mistake on some other service. These people and orgs need absolute and complete ownership over their own platform.

Mastodon / ActivityPub seems like it might scratch that itch, but what a bloated sloppy mess that is. The right idea, with the wrong implementation.

Honestly would prefer all these people and places just published RSS feeds.

replies(28): >>42150683 #>>42150684 #>>42150744 #>>42150850 #>>42150873 #>>42150981 #>>42151263 #>>42151430 #>>42151636 #>>42151681 #>>42151708 #>>42151751 #>>42151778 #>>42151821 #>>42151829 #>>42151891 #>>42151943 #>>42152097 #>>42152127 #>>42152162 #>>42152180 #>>42152186 #>>42152189 #>>42152190 #>>42152192 #>>42152442 #>>42153655 #>>42154091 #
jtbayly ◴[15 Nov 24 20:51 UTC] No.42150873[source]▶
One of the interesting benefits of Twitter splintering into multiple shards is that this problem becomes more clear. As Twitter alternatives have grown more relevant, there is no obvious single place to do this anymore as, say, a police department. Should we move to Bluesky? Threads? Mastodon? Stay on Twitter? Somehow publish to all of the above?

I’m hoping it will lead to something more like RSS, but that may be wishful thinking.

replies(7): >>42150938 #>>42151682 #>>42151853 #>>42151983 #>>42152191 #>>42152509 #>>42153061 #
palata ◴[15 Nov 24 20:57 UTC] No.42150938[source]▶
> I’m hoping it will lead to something more like RSS, but that may be wishful thinking.

Why not exactly RSS? Is it missing something?

replies(4): >>42151091 #>>42151863 #>>42152091 #>>42152381 #
_aavaa_ ◴[15 Nov 24 21:09 UTC] No.42151091[source]▶
Interactivity from the part of the reader
replies(4): >>42151343 #>>42151546 #>>42151773 #>>42153349 #
jjulius ◴[15 Nov 24 21:31 UTC] No.42151343[source]▶
This is probably more rhetorical than anything, but why does it need to be interactive?
replies(2): >>42151649 #>>42151707 #
dymk ◴[15 Nov 24 22:04 UTC] No.42151707[source]▶
You are presently commenting on a platform that has upvotes and replies. Even you apparently want to use a platform that has interactivity.
replies(3): >>42151793 #>>42151837 #>>42151860 #
fluoridation ◴[15 Nov 24 22:16 UTC] No.42151837[source]▶
Why does a police department need a feed to be interactive? Actually, doesn't it being interactive invite improper interactions from citizens that should have used official channels?
replies(1): >>42151857 #
1. TylerE ◴[15 Nov 24 22:17 UTC] No.42151857[source]▶
It is an official channel.
replies(1): >>42151901 #
2. fluoridation ◴[15 Nov 24 22:22 UTC] No.42151901[source]▶
By "official" channel I was thinking of making a police report, or writing something in a complaints book. Tweeting at a PD's account is comparatively as official as scribbling something on the wall of the station bathroom.
replies(1): >>42151914 #
3. TylerE ◴[15 Nov 24 22:24 UTC] No.42151914[source]▶
No, it's more like dropping a note card in a "Tips" drop box in the station lobby. It's literally an officially monitored communication channel that is explicitly authorized.

If anything, the transparency of a social media post is much better than, say, private emails that can be buried and ignored.

replies(2): >>42152028 #>>42152804 #
4. fluoridation ◴[15 Nov 24 22:36 UTC] No.42152028{3}[source]▶
I don't find it particularly interesting to argue about which analogy is more appropriate. My point is that it doesn't have the same degree of officialness as a report or some other public record, and it existing just invites to confusion on that matter.
replies(1): >>42152417 #
5. TylerE ◴[15 Nov 24 23:19 UTC] No.42152417{4}[source]▶
I challenge you again - wht is this any less official than any other officially controlled, officially monitored communication channel. You have offered absolutely no argument to that, yet you continue to say it.
replies(1): >>42152717 #
6. fluoridation ◴[15 Nov 24 23:53 UTC] No.42152717{5}[source]▶
That's a rather silly thing for an adult to ask. There's multiple reasons why a police report is more official than a tweet.

* A police report is a legal document.

* A tweet can be removed by either its poster or by the platform's operator after it's been posted, while only the police can make a report disappear.

* You can tweet at someone anything you want and they don't have to accept it to receive it, while the police can refuse to accept an unfounded report. An insurance company might require a police report be filed before accepting a claim, but it would not accept a tweet as a substitute.

7. palata ◴[16 Nov 24 00:03 UTC] No.42152804{3}[source]▶
Well in practice, if the police department doesn't care about your "tips" (not every station has a "tips" drop box, right?), there is no reason why they should care about your comments.

I have seen plenty of toxic comments on "official" announcements that allow comments that the official entity doesn't actually read. I'm happier with no comment than with toxic comments.