←back to thread

When imperfect systems are good: Bluesky's lossy timelines

(jazco.dev)
768 points cyndunlop | 4 comments | 19 Feb 25 17:48 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bitmasher9 ◴[19 Feb 25 18:28 UTC] No.43105534[source]▶
It’s really impressive how well Bluesky is performing. It really feels like a throwback to older social media platforms with its simplicity and lack of dark-patterns. I’m concerned that all the great work on the platform, protocol, etc won’t shine in the long term as they eventually need to find a revenue source.
replies(3): >>43105649 #>>43105695 #>>43106412 #
autobodie ◴[19 Feb 25 18:37 UTC] No.43105649[source]▶
Absolutely. The profit motive is the root of most evil. It is a shame that so many are trained to believe it is the only motive available.
replies(3): >>43105691 #>>43106641 #>>43107868 #
jarjoura ◴[19 Feb 25 19:49 UTC] No.43106641[source]▶
There's no reason Bluesky has emulate what FB Newsfeed and Twitter/X did to solve engagement by promoting certain items over others.

At the very least, they do have hindsight to learn from.

replies(1): >>43113900 #
1. immibis ◴[20 Feb 25 12:28 UTC] No.43113900[source]▶
There's the profit motive. It's funded by venture capital, so it has to grow at all costs (check) and then cash out.
replies(1): >>43115626 #
2. rsynnott ◴[20 Feb 25 15:10 UTC] No.43115626[source]▶
Twitter didn't start doing it (the pay-for-attention model) until 17 years after it was founded, so, I mean, bsky will probably be okay for a _while_.
replies(1): >>43118585 #
3. immibis ◴[20 Feb 25 18:54 UTC] No.43118585[source]▶
Alternative reading: It took 17 years for venture capitalists to figure out the pay-for-attention model, at which point they immediately applied it to everything they could.
replies(1): >>43122779 #
4. rsynnott ◴[21 Feb 25 00:57 UTC] No.43122779{3}[source]▶
Nah, the pay-for-attention model (the bluetick thing) was Musk; other than dating/hookup sites (and even then, they usually _ration_ it) I think it’s the only significant social media site to do it. No VCs involved.

It’s not like it’s a new idea; dating sites have been trying it since the 90s. But it, ah, a _bad_ model; it is why any popular post on Twitter is now drowned in irrelevant replies from idiot blueticks. It’s a reasonable rule of thumb that, if you have to pay to have your posts amplified, they’re probably not good enough for anyone to want to read them.