Two million Brazilians joined Bluesky over the weekend. Here’s why that’s good news for the #Fediverse.
-
@michael my main problem with bluesky is how it isn’t actually very good at federating, I wish that eventually we get that all sorted out, perhaps make some sort of mechanism to make ATProto intercompatible with ActivityPub?
-
@darl Yes! Fully agree - we need to find a way to fully federate
-
What about those of us who don’t want to federate with companies run for profit?
Why shouldn’t Fediverse 3.0 be a force of change in our society? Let’s cancel Meta, Xitter, TikTok, BlueSky, et all, and let’s create an open-source community-run internet. Secure and private space open to anyone who agrees to follow guidelines. No algorithms, trackers, analytics, insights, corporate agendas.
Let’s discuss what Fediverse 3.0 could be.
-
@RaffKarva @darl Yes - I’d argue Fediverse 3.0 should include just this - but not exclusively be that. If we are to organise change across networks, we need to work with many of them. Our servers are run by for profit corporations after all…
-
I don’t understand the connection you make between federating with BlueSky or Meta and the for-profit nature of our servers.
The article I shared in my previous toot suggests that when a large company joined a decentralised federated protocol in the past, it had negative consequences for the protocol. What makes this time different? What suggests that Meta or BlueSky seek symbiosis rather than monopoly?
-
@RaffKarva @darl Bluesky is a small independent company - they aren’t going to create a monopoly. Meta needs careful handling, yes. We need to be more confident in what the Fediverse can be and do - it can’t be monopolised!
-
The Nexus of Privacyreplied to Raff Karva last edited by
Yeah, I think this is a core tension in today's fediverse -- an extension of what I wrote about in https://privacy.thenexus.today/should-the-fediverse-welcome-surveillance-capitalism/ The fediverse could be grounded in opposition to surveillance capitlasm and big tech. But, it turns out that a lot of fediverse influencers actually are okay with surveillance capitalism and big tech as long as it federates -- Eugen for example calling Meta's plans to embrace, extend, and exploit the fediverse as a "huge victory for our cause."
But I think if you look at Bluesky in terms of this overall dynamic, it's still a net positive for what I think of as the "free fediverses" (the term's originally from @ophiocephalic who runs https://freefediverse.org ). The existing power structure of the ActivityPub fediverse is not only mostly pro-Meta, it's also a huge barrier to innovation. Bluesky's venture-funded, and it's not clear they can come up with a business model that's not exploitative ... but they're a lot better than Meta! So I'd rather see people looking for Twitter alternatives join Bluesky than Threads (where they'd only reinforce Meta's explitative genocidal business model). And I'd rather see people looking for Twitter alternatives join Bluesky (which is a pretty good Twitter alternative) than mastodon.social (which isn't).
Of course there's a lot more to the fediverse than Twitter alternatives. @kissane and @darius's report on fediverse governatnce focuses on the opportunity for thoughtfully-managed medium-sized servers; there isn't any equivalent to that on Bluesky. But the fediverse as a whole doesn't have a good answer on how new people can find the thoughtfully-managed medium-size servers that are good matches for what they're looking for -- and Mastodon in particular has been very hostile to improving things. So hopefully Bluesky's success in attracting the Brazilian wave will lead the rest of the fediverse to build on what it's good at and address the challenges holding it back.
-
@michael given the opportunity, i think the bluesky bridge policy should be reconsidered from double opt-in to double opt-out, like all other instances.
Maybe the bridge could also be included in the Bluesky starter pack ?
Normal people don't take the decision to follow the bridge on their own.
People (say, Potus) are more keen to enable the one-way federation on threads because it's seen as an official platform feature and not an hack
@[email protected]
@[email protected]
@laurenshof
@[email protected]
@[email protected] -
@luca Yes agreed, we need to find a way to making bridging the norm, not the exception