The ‘success’ of Bluesky caught me by surprise, I must admit that. I did not expect people who left Twitter in anger or because they were disappointed by what Twitter turned into to simply join an almost exact copy of it, under another leadership. The issue was not that Twitter was owned by a billionaire, at least not for me: the issue was that it was owned.
For me (I had been a Twitter user since it was launched), beside the good old blogs/personal websites, the Fediverse still is the sole credible alternative that I can think of that allows people to easily express themselves without being owned/controlled by any corporation and/or be treated like cattle.
That’s the reason why I joined the Fediverse the day I quit Twitter (that happened a few years before Musk, I left out of exhaustion facing the constant anger/hate that had become the norm). That’s also why I never considered Bluesky an option for my usage. I wanted not to reproduce the same mistake I made using Twitter. That’s also why no matter how not trendy it is I do still own a personal website too ;)
Same, I was not a Twitter user but the user base did seem generally more educated and I expected them to more easily identify the problem. It’s not even like Twitter was some pleasant, socially responsible place when Jack Dorsey ran it. It was terrible and platformed all sorts of terrible people and the media pointed that out constantly.
As I said in another thread: I feel like many people who went to Bluesky were desperate for it to work and grow, rather than necessarily believing it would work and grow and in some cases - weren’t even people who the Twitter style even appealed to. They just went there to try and do a bit of damage to Twitter. This is likely why its now slowly losing activity.
I signed up to Bluesky not too long after it surged. And I made a few comments, but quickly just… didn’t have anything say. It’s just a “shout into the ether” site like Twitter - but smaller, and no nazis. That’s a good thing in itself, but in an ideal world I would never really use it.
Kind of why I recently left bsky. There just wasn’t an upside.
Answer:
You can!
The solution is don’t use social media that has a CEO.
Ho-lee-fuck, liberals are more dense than a goddamned neutron star.
That’s why this community exists to educate them!
Only one mentioned the fediverse at all?
That’s why I linked it here!
Well, it does have to have a CEO, of course.
you must be meaning Mr. John Mastodon
Because all the companies that get enough attention are funded by venture capital, and only sociopaths have the stomach to deal with venture capital.
Why have a CEO at all, and why should it be a single site?
didn’t jack from 37 signals make Twitter then take some tech bros to make bluesky?
i don’t see that value given the experience with Twitter and musk. fediversal communication communities seem to be the best suited way forward.
i think our Achilles heel here is lack of solid identity management and mature moderation features. lemmy, mbin, piefed, et al have their approaches…
if you want a singular site governed by non-evil, I’d suggest Counter.social.
Jack never worked at 37 Signals!?
Are you thinking or Jason Fried or the guy who made Ruby on Rails David Heinemeir Hansson?
I wish counter.social would federate. It would make me feel more comfortable recommending them.
I agree but in doing so would likely, inadvertently, undermine jester’s security controls.
leaflet.pub? tangled.org? Have you seen this blog post? https://overreacted.io/open-social/
I don’t have any technical issue with the At protocol or the apps that utilize it. I do not think bluesky /followers is as portable as it’s claimed. I do think it’s politics are governed by a select few.
I just want a social media site that has blackjack and hookers.
Revealed preference
Mastodon doesnt have a CEO, though.
Yes, exactly why I shared it here. There is an opportunity to educate.
But then it can’t have a CEO who meets the requirement.
ok
They’re libs dear. Missing the point is all of their shit.
