I've had a lot of people ask how BlueSky compares to Mastodon and the Fediverse.
-
replied to McNeely last edited by
The green dots are servers, I tried to mention this in the captions and alt text?
-
replied to Thomas Schmall last edited by
BlueSky isn't showing things from other instances at all though.
BlueSky is currently just a for-profit centralised single-instance social network, like Twitter or Facebook.
Even if it eventually linked to other instances (which isn't currently happening), it would be through massive corporate relays that would need to exploit user data to fund themselves.
-
replied to Maikel 🇪🇺 last edited by
Feel free to distribute if you want
-
replied to Fedi.Tips last edited by
@FediTips That's just one of the reasons it's easier.
It's orders of magnitude more usable than both ex-twitter and FB and it's not run by (or overrun with) literal nazis. If you want twitter without the nazis and other shit, that's Bluesky... if you don't mind jumping through myriad technical hoops and a much smaller audience, there's Mastodon.
I'm still detecting zero willingness to look critically at Fedi and its UX issues here.
-
replied to Chao-c' last edited by
If you care about MAU, why not just join Twitter, Facebook, Instagram etc? They have much bigger MAUs than BlueSky.
What exactly is the point of joining BlueSky at all as it is going down exactly the same path as Twitter, Facebook etc? What advantage is there to users?
-
replied to John E. Bartley last edited by
BlueSky is a centralised social network, it is on one instance like Twitter or Facebook. It's inherently easier to navigate a single instance network, but it comes at the cost of making it ultra-easy to be bought out, Musk etc could buy it any time.
The BlueSky interface is paid for by selling itself to VC investors. The VCs will then be demanding lots of monetisation once they've gathered enough users. They're on the path to becoming as bad as Twitter or Facebook because of this.
-
replied to Fedi.Tips last edited by
@FediTips I like how you cut through a lot of tech talks (I find it of some interest though) to the highlight key basic differences that actually reveal the true nature of the architectures (one requiring big money, hence needing corporations vs. simple architecture costing little money to run). Thanks! I also am watching Spritely to see how it goes!
-
replied to The Blue Wizard last edited by
Thanks!
That was the aim, to make the explanation simple enough so everyone can see the issues at stake!And yes, very keen to see what Spritely comes up with. 🤩
-
replied to Christiaan Moleman last edited by
"and it's not run by (or overrun with) literal nazis"
Because of the way Bluesky is structured, Musk could buy it tomorrow. There's nothing to stop Twitter happening all over again.
"If you want to be smug"
I'm not being smug, I am being deeply worried by what centralised corporate social networks have done to the world:
Rohingya sue Facebook for £150bn over Myanmar genocide
Victims in US and UK legal action accuse social media firm of failing to prevent incitement of violence
the Guardian (www.theguardian.com)
This is caused by centralised networks run for profit. It doesn't happen at first when it's building up, but it happens eventually.
-
M [email protected] shared this topic
-
N [email protected] shared this topic
-
replied to caos last edited by
This is on my to read list
https://dustycloud.org/blog/how-decentralized-is-bluesky/ -
replied to John E. Bartley last edited by
It's totally your call what you do, I'm not trying to condemn people's choice of platforms.
However, if we keep jumping the problem will keep repeating, and many never jump so the problem never gets solved anyway.
We have to do things differently if we want to break the cycle.
BlueSky is advertising itself as if it is breaking the cycle, the point of the post above is that they're not really breaking the cycle.
-
R [email protected] shared this topic
-
replied to Bill last edited by
@w_b @caos @FediTips @effariwhy
So... BlueSky Direct messages all go through a central server. And are not encrypted E2E anyway.
I don't like that.
Never thought about it but DMs in Mastodon are not E2E either.
I'm just learning about ActivityPub. How difficult would it be to E2E DMs?
Could you provide encryption keys on both ends. And make it to where something like the users pass decrypts DMs?
-
replied to Fedi.Tips last edited by
@FediTips Honestly, the lowest cost for a master. Don't instance. I would say it would be about $70 plus 12 or so a month to keep the D. N. S registered. $60 for raspberry Pi $10 for the needed storage to add to the pi 12 a month for domain registration can we get this Lower?
-
replied to Fedi.Tips last edited by
@FediTips but the main reason I hear people join bsky is because it’s easier. Not sure #average_user is too clued in to the inner workings, or even cares about it all too much.
-
J [email protected] shared this topic
-
replied to Texas Technician last edited by
@txtechnician @caos @FediTips @effariwhy
End to end encryption has been a problem in email that still is not solved. The problem is the key distribution.
I don't know how Signal, etc. do it but it would seem publishing the public key in the user profile would solve e2e for at least DMs.
-
replied to Fedi.Tips last edited by
@FediTips @xChaos @janxdevil It could be that these 12M+ people just don't agree that it is going down exactly the same path as Twitter, Facebook etc?…
-
replied to Kuba Suder • @mackuba.eu on 🦋 last edited by
You brought up MAUs as a reason to be on Bluesky.
I replied that if MAUs are your main concern, you can get even higher MAUs on Twitter etc.
As for going down the path, it's a matter of fact that Bluesky has adopted the same structure as Twitter, Facebook etc. Pretending it hasn't doesn't change this fact.
-
replied to Fedi.Tips last edited by
@FediTips @xChaos @janxdevil I didn't bring it up, @xChaos did
