It seems like we need a user-oriented version of Hyrum's law: Most users don't read roadmaps, legal agreements, or protocol design docs. As far as they're concerned, your product is whatever it...
It seems like we need a user-oriented version of Hyrum's law: Most users don't read roadmaps, legal agreements, or protocol design docs. As far as they're concerned, your product is whatever it does now. If posts are only temporarily sort of private, but "temporary" lasts for months, they will get used to it.
This content was never private though, it was visible to anyone with access to Bluesky. The only difference is that Bluesky is dropping the invite code requirement to view content.
This content was never private though, it was visible to anyone with access to Bluesky. The only difference is that Bluesky is dropping the invite code requirement to view content.
Yep. Obscurity often looks like privacy. Even if you have an account, Bluesky's search engine is terrible (it only indexes the last few hours of posts), so it's somewhat hard to find stuff. (I...
Yep. Obscurity often looks like privacy.
Even if you have an account, Bluesky's search engine is terrible (it only indexes the last few hours of posts), so it's somewhat hard to find stuff. (I don't know what people do with API access.)
Not even that - people have built ways to view any post on bluesky without an account since it's all public anyways: https://skyview.social/. It doesn't use API keys or anything, it simply decodes...
Not even that - people have built ways to view any post on bluesky without an account since it's all public anyways: https://skyview.social/. It doesn't use API keys or anything, it simply decodes the publicly available information you get from hitting public API endpoints.
Maybe I'm asking a stupid question, but wasn't Bluesky sorta supposed to be like what Tildes is? As far as I know, the content is publicly visible but you can't interact with it. Unless Bluesky is...
Maybe I'm asking a stupid question, but wasn't Bluesky sorta supposed to be like what Tildes is? As far as I know, the content is publicly visible but you can't interact with it.
Unless Bluesky is supposed to occupy a similar niche to Facebook Messenger: you can have groups, but only the people within those groups can see the messages you post.
I guess what I'm asking is, is Bluesky supposed to be a private service or a public service? Assuming the former... Well, in my experience you want only small number for a private service and limited advertising about it, and usually with a high barrier to entry (invite codes are a relatively low entry).
On the other hand, if it's supposed to be public in the end... Well, have people forgotten about this old advice? Never post online anything you wouldn't want others to see.
It's supposed to be public (like Tildes posts are public). It isn't yet, and some people didn't understand. Letting people opt out seems like a good way to avoid a larger dispute. I don't know...
It's supposed to be public (like Tildes posts are public). It isn't yet, and some people didn't understand. Letting people opt out seems like a good way to avoid a larger dispute.
I don't know what plans there are for private groups, but there don't seem to be any.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking and why I ended up confused... People signed up for a public service but want it too be treated like a private service? I would ask "Did people really not...
Yeah, that's what I was thinking and why I ended up confused... People signed up for a public service but want it too be treated like a private service? I would ask "Did people really not understand what they were signing up for?", but the answer to that one seems to be a solid "Yes."
Though I do agree having an option to opt out of having posts be public is a good approach to this issue... And that leads to other questions, such as why someone would use a social media service in the first place if they want their content to be private.
i think people signed up for a closed beta, and then assumed theyd have account privacy options before it went public (like facebook, insta, and twitter). currently i dont think you can make a...
i think people signed up for a closed beta, and then assumed theyd have account privacy options before it went public (like facebook, insta, and twitter). currently i dont think you can make a private profile and restrict it to friends.
thats a vastly different situation to just not understanding that your posts are gonna be public
I guess it's interesting that they are okay with it being "semi-public" but not "public". Any random person with an invite can see their posts even if they aren't friends but it being a larger...
I guess it's interesting that they are okay with it being "semi-public" but not "public". Any random person with an invite can see their posts even if they aren't friends but it being a larger populace is too insecure?
Either way, as a "Twitter alternative" it makes sense to have truly private or semi-private accounts. Just funny that this is what prompts that conversation.
Last month, the company announced its decentralized alternative to Twitter/X would soon open up a public web interface allowing anyone to view the posts on its platform, even if they didn’t have an invite to the app, which remains in a closed beta. Though the team didn’t meet the “end of the month” deadline for the public web launch, it did ruffle some feathers. Many users were upset that their posts would be made public on the web, without the option of setting their accounts to private, aka a “friends-only” mode, like they have on X.
In a post on Wednesday, Bluesky announced its plans to open a public web interface have been pushed back — a move that’s likely due to the user feedback on the issue.
The company shared that the “upcoming release will not have the public web view enabled yet, but it will have a tool to opt out of it.”
Still, Bluesky subtly pushed back at the idea that anyone should have felt their Bluesky posts were private or protected by reminding users that “your posts, profile, and likes are all public data.” However, it’s not exactly users’ fault that they may have been lulled into a false sense of security here. Bluesky first launched in February as an invite-only app, and has remained invite-only in the many months since, even as new Twitter/X competitors emerged, including Instagram Threads. The company seemed in no rush to open to the public, and as a result, users likely felt comfortable that, by the time it did, they would have the option to lock down their accounts if need be.
I have an account but I've found almost no interesting accounts to follow, feels like a wasteland to me. I'm trying to actively avoid outrage-bait, doomscrolling, clickbait, etc and given that...
I have an account but I've found almost no interesting accounts to follow, feels like a wasteland to me. I'm trying to actively avoid outrage-bait, doomscrolling, clickbait, etc and given that social media platforms get absolutely inundated with that stuff, without them it almost feels like an empty room
I'm not on Bluesky, but I'm on Lemmy and am very much having the same experience. I enjoy not having the outrage-bait (as far as I've seen, anyway!) here on Tildes, it's a real game-changer in my...
I'm not on Bluesky, but I'm on Lemmy and am very much having the same experience. I enjoy not having the outrage-bait (as far as I've seen, anyway!) here on Tildes, it's a real game-changer in my experience. On Lemmy, I tried blocking, but it's a pointless task, there's just a flood of bad-faith users and posters and communities etc. etc. Doomerism is cool, and gets clicks and an emotional reaction, but I think that comes at the price of my mental health.
Depends on what you're interested in! I mostly follow authors and some disability advocates and such. But there are some good mute lists and follow lists which are both useful and the...
Depends on what you're interested in! I mostly follow authors and some disability advocates and such. But there are some good mute lists and follow lists which are both useful and the functionality is built in (haven't used a mute list yet)
I find Bluesky boring so far so I'm not recommending it or anything, but my account over there is @skybrian.bsky.social. (The only thing I've shared are a few links to music videos, but I think...
I find Bluesky boring so far so I'm not recommending it or anything, but my account over there is @skybrian.bsky.social. (The only thing I've shared are a few links to music videos, but I think they're good ones.)
It seems like we need a user-oriented version of Hyrum's law: Most users don't read roadmaps, legal agreements, or protocol design docs. As far as they're concerned, your product is whatever it does now. If posts are only temporarily sort of private, but "temporary" lasts for months, they will get used to it.
This content was never private though, it was visible to anyone with access to Bluesky. The only difference is that Bluesky is dropping the invite code requirement to view content.
Yep. Obscurity often looks like privacy.
Even if you have an account, Bluesky's search engine is terrible (it only indexes the last few hours of posts), so it's somewhat hard to find stuff. (I don't know what people do with API access.)
Not even that - people have built ways to view any post on bluesky without an account since it's all public anyways: https://skyview.social/. It doesn't use API keys or anything, it simply decodes the publicly available information you get from hitting public API endpoints.
Maybe I'm asking a stupid question, but wasn't Bluesky sorta supposed to be like what Tildes is? As far as I know, the content is publicly visible but you can't interact with it.
Unless Bluesky is supposed to occupy a similar niche to Facebook Messenger: you can have groups, but only the people within those groups can see the messages you post.
I guess what I'm asking is, is Bluesky supposed to be a private service or a public service? Assuming the former... Well, in my experience you want only small number for a private service and limited advertising about it, and usually with a high barrier to entry (invite codes are a relatively low entry).
On the other hand, if it's supposed to be public in the end... Well, have people forgotten about this old advice? Never post online anything you wouldn't want others to see.
It's supposed to be public (like Tildes posts are public). It isn't yet, and some people didn't understand. Letting people opt out seems like a good way to avoid a larger dispute.
I don't know what plans there are for private groups, but there don't seem to be any.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking and why I ended up confused... People signed up for a public service but want it too be treated like a private service? I would ask "Did people really not understand what they were signing up for?", but the answer to that one seems to be a solid "Yes."
Though I do agree having an option to opt out of having posts be public is a good approach to this issue... And that leads to other questions, such as why someone would use a social media service in the first place if they want their content to be private.
i think people signed up for a closed beta, and then assumed theyd have account privacy options before it went public (like facebook, insta, and twitter). currently i dont think you can make a private profile and restrict it to friends.
thats a vastly different situation to just not understanding that your posts are gonna be public
I guess it's interesting that they are okay with it being "semi-public" but not "public". Any random person with an invite can see their posts even if they aren't friends but it being a larger populace is too insecure?
Either way, as a "Twitter alternative" it makes sense to have truly private or semi-private accounts. Just funny that this is what prompts that conversation.
From the article:
I have an account but I've found almost no interesting accounts to follow, feels like a wasteland to me. I'm trying to actively avoid outrage-bait, doomscrolling, clickbait, etc and given that social media platforms get absolutely inundated with that stuff, without them it almost feels like an empty room
I'm not on Bluesky, but I'm on Lemmy and am very much having the same experience. I enjoy not having the outrage-bait (as far as I've seen, anyway!) here on Tildes, it's a real game-changer in my experience. On Lemmy, I tried blocking, but it's a pointless task, there's just a flood of bad-faith users and posters and communities etc. etc. Doomerism is cool, and gets clicks and an emotional reaction, but I think that comes at the price of my mental health.
I have 5 invites left if anybody is still looking for one.
Can I have one?
Edit: Can anyone recommend some accounts to follow?
Depends on what you're interested in! I mostly follow authors and some disability advocates and such. But there are some good mute lists and follow lists which are both useful and the functionality is built in (haven't used a mute list yet)
Same.
I would take one
I'm interested
Do you have one more?
I have 5 invites too, DM me if you need one.
I find Bluesky boring so far so I'm not recommending it or anything, but my account over there is @skybrian.bsky.social. (The only thing I've shared are a few links to music videos, but I think they're good ones.)
I have 2 invite codes if folks need one.