“our lead shares our philosophy that technology should serve the user, not the reverse
-
“our lead shares our philosophy that technology should serve the user, not the reverse
this is why they focus on blockchains, a technology basically always used at the expense of its users”
-
i do think the degree to which bluesky is stressing that they do not use blockchains really underscores how toxic even a faint whiff of blockchain has become to any normal platform
-
@molly0xfff I've said before that for the fediverse to "win", we just have to wait until the "competition" gets enshittified.
I'm relieved to see that it might not actually take that long!
-
Lazarou Monkey Terror 🚀💙🌈replied to Stefan Bohacek on last edited by
@stefan @molly0xfff I believe this too.
-
Stefan Bohacekreplied to Lazarou Monkey Terror 🚀💙🌈 on last edited by
@Lazarou @molly0xfff Hah, well I simplified a bit, so I do want to add that we still have a lot of work to do to make the fediverse a truly diverse and safe space.
And that's really what I want to us to focus on, as a community, while we wait for the inevitable cycle of enshittification of corporate social media.
-
@molly0xfff you are more active on bsky though, aren't you? I'm curious why that is, is the audience more engaging?
-
@arkd i’m not sure if i’m more active there -- i post roughly equally across all my platforms because i POSSE most of my posts from my site
-
Fediverse Reportreplied to Stefan Bohacek on last edited by
if time-to-enshittification-rate (whatever that term at this point even means) is correlated to funding rate, Bluesky's much lower funding rate compared to Twitter in the same stage of the platform's life, it would suggest that it would take quite a while for bluesky to get enshittified. 15milion usd is a pretty low amount of money, and Im guessing they couldve raised a lot more if they wanted to, considering the MAU graphs they can show
(source: https://bsky.app/profile/ripperoni.com/post/3l7brn5wero2j)
-
if time-to-enshittification-rate (whatever that term at this point even means) is correlated to funding rate, Bluesky's much lower funding rate compared to Twitter in the same stage of the platform's life, it would suggest that it would take quite a while for bluesky to get enshittified. 15milion usd is a pretty low amount of money, and Im guessing they couldve raised a lot more if they wanted to, considering the MAU graphs they can show
(source: https://bsky.app/profile/ripperoni.com/post/3l7brn5wero2j)
-
(sorry broke the reply chain because I accidentally replied from the wrong account first)
yeah true. My vibe is that Jay has a big network in the crypto world, and is selling atproto as embodying the ideals of the crypto world related to decentralisation and selfownership of digital identity, without the major drawbacks of what she seems to call hyperfinancialisation
Molly White (@[email protected])
@[email protected] @[email protected] the corollary here is they probably could have raised from different investors too, if they so chose
Hachyderm.io (hachyderm.io)
-
“in conclusion, we truly believe these leopards won’t eat our face.
love, bluesky” -
@laurenshof @molly0xfff Interesting, thank you for the analysis!
-
your idiot friendreplied to Molly White on last edited by
@molly0xfff “and to make sure everyone benefits we’re adding the leopard to our board where they could theoretically vote to change our policy on eating faces”
-
@molly0xfff The way they described how really, honestly, truly BS isn't going to be using blockchain makes me think they've already implemented some completely useless crypto feature they'll start unrolling like next week.
-
git is blockchain technology, and has been around a lot longer than cryptocurrency.
-
@i_understand that requires a pretty unusual definition of "blockchain"
-
Why would you say that, git is a blockchain. Blockchain was invented in the 90s. The first using the NYTs as the independent "proof" for partners to validate the integrity of the chain.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/what-was-the-first-blockchain/
-
Molly Whitereplied to I understand on last edited by [email protected]
@i_understand again, it's an unusual definition of blockchains if git is included. there are shared characteristics, to be sure, but git lacks immutability and decentralized consensus mechanisms
-
Git lacks immutability? The hashes for each chain are published and used to ensure history can not be modified as each new transaction is added.
In terms of "decentralized consensus mechanisms", I'm not aware that is a requirement for a blockchain. Certainly consensus is required, but the decentralized bit is a choice. Here is something from finra that I hope helps show I'm not the only one thinking this way, there are other references of course.
-
@i_understand the contents of a git commit can't be changed without changing the hash, if that's what you're referring to, but git is absolutely mutable. ask anyone who's accidentally checked in a private key.
