X and Facebook are governed by the policies of mercurial billionaires. Bluesky’s C.E.O., Jay Graber, says that she wants to give power back to the user.
I did, I do, and I’m calling this article bullshit for not pointing out that while the protocol might be open-source, they have yet to share the server software that’s required to operate it.
BlueSky “lets” people host their own profile data because it reduces how much data they have to host. It does not allow them to login and browse the network without going through their centralized servers to do so.
So, it’s not really decentralized, not really open source, and remains under corporate control until such time as they decide to let anyone compete with them on their own network.
I understand all of that. What I’d like the OP to address is how Bluesky could turn into something resembling Twitter if it’s, technically, very different.
The point being made is that it isn’t very different. Focusing on the technicalities ignores the broad strokes of it. Missing the forest for the trees and all that.
The discussion of Bluesky’s flaws, drawbacks, misleading claims of “federation”, etc… has already been done to death.
This also isn’t debate club. “What I’d like OP to address” good god.
But in the interest of good faith, here’s the cliff notes: It’s run by a corporation headed by one of Twitter’s original founders, and there’s not significant evidence it will not fall to the same path to shittiness that Twitter did. It is only technically federated, not actually in practice. It is not fully open source, as key portions of the infrastructure code have not been released. Of the portions that have been released, it is nearly impossible to run your own node due to the major amount of storage space required. Beyond that, all communications must ultimately go through BlueSky’s centralized infrastructure. There’s no point to running your own node because their centralized infrastructure won’t talk with it. No one has actually been able to do anything more than host their own profile in regards to federation. At this point there is no financial incentive for them to invest money in solving the issues preventing it from being able to be truly federated.
Most of all, mastodon already exists as a mature system for federated microblogging without the major drawbacks of bluesky.
Did you read the article? Do you understand, technically, how Bluesky differs from Twitter (X)?
I did, I do, and I’m calling this article bullshit for not pointing out that while the protocol might be open-source, they have yet to share the server software that’s required to operate it.
BlueSky “lets” people host their own profile data because it reduces how much data they have to host. It does not allow them to login and browse the network without going through their centralized servers to do so.
So, it’s not really decentralized, not really open source, and remains under corporate control until such time as they decide to let anyone compete with them on their own network.
I understand all of that. What I’d like the OP to address is how Bluesky could turn into something resembling Twitter if it’s, technically, very different.
The point being made is that it isn’t very different. Focusing on the technicalities ignores the broad strokes of it. Missing the forest for the trees and all that.
The discussion of Bluesky’s flaws, drawbacks, misleading claims of “federation”, etc… has already been done to death.
This also isn’t debate club. “What I’d like OP to address” good god.
But in the interest of good faith, here’s the cliff notes: It’s run by a corporation headed by one of Twitter’s original founders, and there’s not significant evidence it will not fall to the same path to shittiness that Twitter did. It is only technically federated, not actually in practice. It is not fully open source, as key portions of the infrastructure code have not been released. Of the portions that have been released, it is nearly impossible to run your own node due to the major amount of storage space required. Beyond that, all communications must ultimately go through BlueSky’s centralized infrastructure. There’s no point to running your own node because their centralized infrastructure won’t talk with it. No one has actually been able to do anything more than host their own profile in regards to federation. At this point there is no financial incentive for them to invest money in solving the issues preventing it from being able to be truly federated.
Most of all, mastodon already exists as a mature system for federated microblogging without the major drawbacks of bluesky.
I know that BlueSky has investors and soon enough every company has turned into shit when investors are involved.