←back to thread

461 points GavinAnderegg | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.202s | source
Show context
llm_nerd ◴[] 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 #
1. jauntywundrkind ◴[] No.42152442[source]
> 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.

Having seen this process of creation sustaining & decaying happen again and again, I totally get why you would feel this.

And I forgive you for applying the thinning broadly like this, casting insidious doubt widely like this.

But that's not what Bluesky is doing. Some links; first their o.g. app-lead (is that still right?),

> The network should outlast the company. Imagine if the Web died when Netscape or Yahoo did! It's strange to even think that. The same should apply to social networks.

https://bsky.app/profile/pfrazee.com/post/3lau2bgyolc2g

(Or see 18 months ago, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35012757)

And ((new) board member) Mike Masnick & (founder) Jay Graber on protocols not platforms, 9 months ago (pre Mike on the board),

https://bsky.app/profile/mmasnick.bsky.social/post/3kjtmw4m6...

Steve Klabnik has a post, How Bluesky Works, that talks about what Bluesky is. Yes, right now a variety of the layers of At Protocol are run by BlueSky alone. But the data can retain its integrity even if they fail, the network & data is by design open & transparent to all & transferable, and it's all based on protocols. https://steveklabnik.com/writing/how-does-bluesky-work

This hypothesis that everyone else has been rug pulled & so BlueSky will too defies a ton of very hard careful work that Jay began when she very specifically worked to make sure BlueSky could be independent, to make it based on protocols.