39 votes

Bluesky advertises itself as an open network, they say people won't lose followers or their identity, they advertise themselves as a protocol ("atproto"). These three claims are false.

109 comments

  1. [79]
    TheRtRevKaiser
    Link
    I think the vast majority of users on Bluesky could not care less about the protocol. They were and are looking for an alternative to Twitter that is better moderated and provides safety features...
    • Exemplary

    I think the vast majority of users on Bluesky could not care less about the protocol. They were and are looking for an alternative to Twitter that is better moderated and provides safety features to its users that were absent on Twitter (I understand there's some complicated history to that, but I think it's fair to say that this is true of the current influx of users). If people cared about open protocols and decentralization, they would have moved to Mastodon, but honestly Mastodon's user experience is pretty awful. I think people are willing to put up with a certain amount of jankiness if there's a strong enough network effect, but when you have large numbers of people who are looking for a place to go, and one place is confusing and intimidating and the other is simple and easy, folks are probably going to pick the latter.

    FOSS advocates don't seem to understand that the vast majority of people don't understand and don't care about FOSS.

    131 votes
    1. [17]
      stu2b50
      Link Parent
      I don't think most people care about that, either. It's a mix of people hedging their bets, and people who find the "vibe" of Twitter's brand, now inexorably linked with Musk and whatever he's...

      They were and are looking for an alternative to Twitter that is better moderated and provides safety features to its users that were absent on Twitter

      I don't think most people care about that, either. It's a mix of people hedging their bets, and people who find the "vibe" of Twitter's brand, now inexorably linked with Musk and whatever he's doing at the time, too much to handle.

      Basically, Bluesky is twitter, minus Musk, and that's about it for most people.

      47 votes
      1. [5]
        DefinitelyNotAFae
        Link Parent
        I think the loud amount of harassment and bigotry there has made folks more interested in a better moderated experience, and the ability to self moderate via block/mute lists may not be high on...

        I think the loud amount of harassment and bigotry there has made folks more interested in a better moderated experience, and the ability to self moderate via block/mute lists may not be high on everyone's priority list but it's talked about enough and shared enough that combined with the ethos of "block first" the moderation experience is pretty key to a lot of folks contentment with the site. That came along with Musk but wasn't just his presence.

        24 votes
        1. babypuncher
          Link Parent
          I think the community-driven, individual moderation really is the key to Bluesky's appeal. It allows people to create a pleasant experience free from assholes and trolls, while letting Bluesky...

          I think the community-driven, individual moderation really is the key to Bluesky's appeal. It allows people to create a pleasant experience free from assholes and trolls, while letting Bluesky itself take a more relaxed approach to site-wide moderation. It allows them to avoid the controversy of censoring people without becoming a "Nazi Bar".

          The fact that they are structured as a Public Benefit Corporation also gives me some faith that they will be able to resist the urge to enshittify the way every other major social network has.

          18 votes
        2. [3]
          ButteredToast
          Link Parent
          It feels to me like the natural response to the extreme that Twitter had become, which was the online equivalent of allowing anybody and everybody to momentarily step into your living room. Turns...

          It feels to me like the natural response to the extreme that Twitter had become, which was the online equivalent of allowing anybody and everybody to momentarily step into your living room. Turns out that with huge online communities, that’s just as unpleasant as if anybody in the real world could teleport into your living room without notice, which highlights the value of moderation both on the community and individual levels.

          11 votes
          1. [2]
            DefinitelyNotAFae
            Link Parent
            Teleport and just yell that you should kill yourself over and over. Unmoderated spaces (which Twitter isn't, because "cis" gets you moderated) and undermoderated spaces are miserable to be in,...

            Teleport and just yell that you should kill yourself over and over.

            Unmoderated spaces (which Twitter isn't, because "cis" gets you moderated) and undermoderated spaces are miserable to be in, even if you're not a part of the targeted minority groups. It's bad for everyone to be around that much hate, and it draws out the worst in people when it's the majority of the content.

            17 votes
            1. merry-cherry
              Link Parent
              Twitter had some reasonable moderation before Musk but he certainly has made strides in flipping the side of moderation. With him playing President now, it's very imperative to get away from his...

              Twitter had some reasonable moderation before Musk but he certainly has made strides in flipping the side of moderation. With him playing President now, it's very imperative to get away from his influence as much as possible.

      2. [11]
        OBLIVIATER
        Link Parent
        If you consider handling bots and ragebait spam accounts as moderation (which I do) I would argue that moderation is a huge factor for lots of Twitter refugees. The number one complaint I heard...

        If you consider handling bots and ragebait spam accounts as moderation (which I do) I would argue that moderation is a huge factor for lots of Twitter refugees. The number one complaint I heard about Twitter from my friends (other than the obvious Musk stuff) was the amount of spam bots they had in their mentions, DMs, replies, etc. 90% of the notifications I got from Twitter are from porn bots, crypto bots, or something similar.

        10 votes
        1. [7]
          skybrian
          Link Parent
          I follow some of the Bluesky developers and they've been scrambling to keep up with growth and attacks from spammers, etc. It's very much work-in-progress. I think it's reasonable to give them...

          I follow some of the Bluesky developers and they've been scrambling to keep up with growth and attacks from spammers, etc. It's very much work-in-progress.

          I think it's reasonable to give them some benefit of the doubt on a lot of things, rather than assuming in advance that they're gonna fail. But it's also fair to say that there are still a lot of things people are going to want that haven't been implemented yet.

          Decentralization is definitely work-in-progress too. The protocols and software are mostly there, but whether they achieve decentralization in practice remains to be seen.

          9 votes
          1. [6]
            OBLIVIATER
            Link Parent
            I'm sorry I'm confused, I didn't intend to imply that they're going to fail, and I don't think I did. I think Bluesky is doing a much better job fighting spambots, I haven't seen a single one on...

            I think it's reasonable to give them some benefit of the doubt on a lot of things, rather than assuming in advance that they're gonna fail.

            I'm sorry I'm confused, I didn't intend to imply that they're going to fail, and I don't think I did. I think Bluesky is doing a much better job fighting spambots, I haven't seen a single one on my tenure on the site so far.

            3 votes
            1. [4]
              norb
              Link Parent
              There's an interesting influx of bots that they've started calling "contrarian reply bots" where they seem to reply in a negative to any comment. They tend to use a similar sentence...

              I haven't seen a single one on my tenure on the site so far.

              There's an interesting influx of bots that they've started calling "contrarian reply bots" where they seem to reply in a negative to any comment. They tend to use a similar sentence structure/format/wording just ad-libbing in whatever the original post was about.

              I didn't spend any time on Twitter so I don't know if that was a thing over there, but it seems to be something somewhat new and specific to Bluesky from what I can tell.

              I personally think that no matter what social media site you use, bots are here to stay and they'll only get harder to detect as the LLMs of the world get better.

              I'll also say, my personal experience with spam on Bluesky has been Only Fans follow-back accounts. I report those as I see them, but they are rather light touch as far as spam goes.

              4 votes
              1. [3]
                onceuponaban
                (edited )
                Link Parent
                I mean, Tildes, which I'd count under social media, can be safely assumed to not include any LLM pretending to be humans (unless..? 👀). Nitpicking aside, I believe the extent of the spread of bots...

                I personally think that no matter what social media site you use, bots are here to stay

                I mean, Tildes, which I'd count under social media, can be safely assumed to not include any LLM pretending to be humans (unless..? 👀). Nitpicking aside, I believe the extent of the spread of bots and in particular LLM powered ones on social media can be attributed mostly to their massive scale, both the platforms themselves and the corporations they're backed by, meaning they both have commercial incentives to let them proliferate (as far as Reddit is concerned, an LLM server farm pretending to be thousands of people can drive up engagement metrics just as well as genuine users, and you don't even have to worry about convincing them to stay on the platform to boot, just pay for the electricity bill) and the ability to make it less obvious.

                While this is very relevant to the current state of social media, I don't think it's an inherent property of the concept and can be solved on a case by case basis. Probably not to the point of completely wiping them out, some will slip through the cracks occasionally, but it can be curtailed to the point of having practically no impact. It's just that the current major platforms don't consider it a problem to solve in the first place, if not outright an asset to exploit (even if they might pretend otherwise).

                4 votes
                1. [2]
                  norb
                  Link Parent
                  I totally agree with all that. I think this site in particular is tough for bots to proliferate on, because I have found that the longer you let them go on, the more obvious it becomes that they...

                  I totally agree with all that. I think this site in particular is tough for bots to proliferate on, because I have found that the longer you let them go on, the more obvious it becomes that they are not human. (Your linked comment is a great example - even if you are making a joke.) I also think this community is so niche as to not attract the kinds of attention that drives bots to places.

                  I also agree that many sites will look the other way because bots support their business model in different ways. The ethereal "engagement" metrics that get tossed around, and probably used to attract advertisers being a big one.

                  I just think that bots are here to stay, and will become more, not less, common over the long term. Does that mean they are impossible to keep out? No, but it requires the administrators to tackle it actively and in an on-going manner.

                  I commented above about Musk complaining about bots on Twitter, then when he took over removed/adjusted a lot of the systems used to keep them out. I think, he felt like the "bots were out to get him" when he didn't run the place, then when he did he needed them to make it look like the ship wasn't sinking.

                  As with any tool, they are neither good nor bad on their own, but their uses can be either.

                  5 votes
                  1. onceuponaban
                    Link Parent
                    I agree with your take. Assuming the current trend of social media operating under the assumption that infinite growth of the platform is not only desirable but mandatory holds steady (and so far...

                    I agree with your take. Assuming the current trend of social media operating under the assumption that infinite growth of the platform is not only desirable but mandatory holds steady (and so far there's no reason to suspect that's changing any time soon), I believe you're right: bots, particularly LLMs pretending to be genuine users, are staying as a fixture of our social media landscape. My point is that this is more a consequence of how the modern web is currently structured (even if the status quo IS very entrenched and unlikely to be disrupted by anything less than something that would qualify as a worldwide historic event, so for practical purposes it's a safe assumption) than something inherent to social media as a concept. I think the model can be adapted to reverse that trend, it's the conditions to realistically put it in practice at scale that are missing.

            2. skybrian
              Link Parent
              Yeah, sorry, that's not really a response to you, but to Bluesky critics I was thinking of at the time. I haven't seen any spam on Bluesky either, but I've read complaints about it.

              Yeah, sorry, that's not really a response to you, but to Bluesky critics I was thinking of at the time.

              I haven't seen any spam on Bluesky either, but I've read complaints about it.

              2 votes
        2. [3]
          norb
          Link Parent
          Remember when Musk claimed some large percentage of Twitter content was bots and that he needed to clear all those out? I do. LOL

          Remember when Musk claimed some large percentage of Twitter content was bots and that he needed to clear all those out? I do. LOL

          5 votes
          1. [2]
            onceuponaban
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            To this day I'm still not sure if he truly believed his claim at the time and reversed course when he realized it was very convenient to make the sacrosanct metrics look better, or if he never...

            To this day I'm still not sure if he truly believed his claim at the time and reversed course when he realized it was very convenient to make the sacrosanct metrics look better, or if he never meant it and just said it for the sake of optics knowing damn well they would be needed to hide that the actual humans were fleeing the ship. I don't think he would be self-aware enough to consciously factor in that him being at the helm would be in and of itself a major reason that it's happening in the first place (or if he is then I guess he literally just doesn't care about anything but his own interests at a fundamental level... which makes sense for a billionaire), but he's educated enough that I'm fairly certain he knew just as well as we do that Twitter's model, as well as any of the other big tech backed platforms, is unsustainable, which was already true before he ended up in charge. He knows better than to publicly admit it, but I don't think he's in denial on this front.

            EDIT: I realized I omitted an important part of my reasoning so I elaborated on it.

            1. RobotOverlord525
              Link Parent
              At the time, I was convinced that it was just a last minute objection to try to get out of buying Twitter. I never thought it was a complaint he was making in good faith.

              At the time, I was convinced that it was just a last minute objection to try to get out of buying Twitter. I never thought it was a complaint he was making in good faith.

    2. [18]
      onceuponaban
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      Speaking purely for myself, it's not that I don't understand, it's that I'm jaded after seeing the same pattern repeating over and over. I'm more than happy to talk about alternatives to those who...

      FOSS advocates don't seem to understand that the vast majority of people don't understand and don't care about FOSS.

      Speaking purely for myself, it's not that I don't understand, it's that I'm jaded after seeing the same pattern repeating over and over. I'm more than happy to talk about alternatives to those who will listen but I no longer have the motivation to convince people that centralized closed-source platforms are inherently unsustainable when the never-ending cycle of enshittification failed to do so. I'll leave that task to people with more energy than I do and focus on helping out those who actually are interested in distancing themselves from the tech giants. I suspect this same sentiment is a factor in this article's tone, including the overly hostile title to the point of being flat out incorrect.

      Yes, bluesky is not exactly living up to their claims, they're just as vulnerable to the inherent flaws that made Twitter, Facebook and co. a hellscape, and I would go as far as to say they're dishonest in some aspects, but that does not constitute a scam, or at least not any more than, say, Star Citizen might be (although that comparison falls short since bluesky isn't asking you for money to create an account and start using the service). Even then, they still ultimately deliver in the one thing people are actually looking for right now: Twitter, but without the current prick in charge. Whether they should be looking for something else is another matter entirely.

      EDIT: ...That said, if you do want to hear me out on the "people don't care about FOSS" part and why I believe that's a massive issue I seem to have accidentally posted 2 thousand words on the matter., which I'm linking to in this edit because it's also directly relevant to the parent comment.

      30 votes
      1. [14]
        Lexinonymous
        Link Parent
        If anything, I think that Mastodon had quite nice UX by the standards of most FOSS projects, especially if you were using an app. Yet it almost seemed like there was palpable glee in certain...

        Speaking purely for myself, it's not that I don't understand, it's that I'm jaded after seeing the same pattern repeating over and over. I'm more than happy to talk about alternatives to those who will listen but I no longer have the motivation to convince people that centralized closed-source platforms are inherently unsustainable when the never-ending cycle of enshittification failed to do so.

        If anything, I think that Mastodon had quite nice UX by the standards of most FOSS projects, especially if you were using an app. Yet it almost seemed like there was palpable glee in certain crowds of Twitter users pointing out shortcomings of the project.

        As someone who dabbles in FOSS contributions from time to time, this does not entice me to improve on UX - on the contrary, I get the impression that I'd be better off re-prioritizing features from users who are actually willing to engage in good faith.

        11 votes
        1. [7]
          Comment deleted by author
          Link Parent
          1. [5]
            DefinitelyNotAFae
            Link Parent
            There was a pretty strong corporate move to threads initially, In fact, a lot of the complaints were that the way the algorithm there worked, you essentially only saw corporate posts and...

            There was a pretty strong corporate move to threads initially, In fact, a lot of the complaints were that the way the algorithm there worked, you essentially only saw corporate posts and influencer posts and not your friends or things you might actually like

            8 votes
            1. [4]
              onceuponaban
              Link Parent
              Frankly I consider Meta corrupt on the same level as Twitter and have no faith that any social media platform under their thumb is anything but a net negative for society. If anything, Threads...

              Frankly I consider Meta corrupt on the same level as Twitter and have no faith that any social media platform under their thumb is anything but a net negative for society. If anything, Threads trying to federalize is a threat to the Fediverse as a whole (haven't followed that part though, did they even end up implementing that? I hope not) and should be treated as such.

              9 votes
              1. [3]
                DefinitelyNotAFae
                Link Parent
                I have zero interest in threads, I see them occasionally on Facebook (divesting is a long process right now, and longer after IG is the only place to find some folks I like from TT, it's a whole...

                I have zero interest in threads, I see them occasionally on Facebook (divesting is a long process right now, and longer after IG is the only place to find some folks I like from TT, it's a whole thing. I hate it and am there under protest.) Seems like tumblr and BSky are better

                I was just saying that the highlighting and dominance corporate material was highlighted as a problem early on. To the point that jokes were it was just for Wendy's and the like to talk to each other.

                3 votes
                1. [2]
                  onceuponaban
                  Link Parent
                  Yeah, shaking off any of the "big tech" corporations is a daunting task for any but the most trivial purposes, and social media even more so. Even if a silver bullet suddenly showed up as an...

                  Yeah, shaking off any of the "big tech" corporations is a daunting task for any but the most trivial purposes, and social media even more so. Even if a silver bullet suddenly showed up as an alternative, adoption runs into the added issue compared to other software that it's useless if no one is on it.... which recursively turns into "no one is showing up because no one is showing up" unless some other factor can convince them.

                  Like, say, the platform they were on being overtaken by a wannabe Joseph Goebbels. In a way I kind of want to see Zuckerberg dropping the mask in as obvious a manner, maybe that might actually start opening people's eyes on how much rot has infested these companies and trigger a meaningful domino effect toward ending the era of the Internet being under the boot of these corporations. The fact that this is even something to hope for is worrying, though.

                  1 vote
                  1. DefinitelyNotAFae
                    Link Parent
                    I mean, I think there's a lot of strong feelings even now, the problem is not just that no one uses the new thing, it's that everyone is on the old thing. Facebook in particular is hard to drag my...

                    I mean, I think there's a lot of strong feelings even now, the problem is not just that no one uses the new thing, it's that everyone is on the old thing. Facebook in particular is hard to drag my family away from, and only the fact that I've lost touch with a lot of my family makes it even actually possible. And even then their friends are still there, or family I don't talk to, etc.

                    I got my mom on Signal and that's progress, but uh, one down, ya know :)

                    3 votes
          2. stu2b50
            Link Parent
            Corporations don't really need to "move" to threads, they'd just use the same instagram account they had for instagram.

            Corporations don't really need to "move" to threads, they'd just use the same instagram account they had for instagram.

            5 votes
        2. [7]
          raze2012
          Link Parent
          Very likely. Even platforms will have their stans that either refuse to give another rival a proper shake, or outright want to sabatoge that platform for their preferred one. That sadly is...

          it almost seemed like there was palpable glee in certain crowds of Twitter users pointing out shortcomings of the project.

          Very likely. Even platforms will have their stans that either refuse to give another rival a proper shake, or outright want to sabatoge that platform for their preferred one.

          That sadly is "benefit" of Bluesky. It basically is just "twitter but [not bad thing]" instead of a potential evolution and iteration on what Twitter could be with a fresh re-trhinking 15 years later. Just more examples on how people don't want to re-adjust their daily habits, no matter how inefficient.

          4 votes
          1. [7]
            Comment deleted by author
            Link Parent
            1. [6]
              raze2012
              Link Parent
              Yes, and given my life goals that frustrates me. Broken windows and letting small things slide until suddenly websites are sending you gigabytes just to load a basic webpage to no fuss. Someone...

              Some people (me included) don't care if our daily habits are inefficient.

              Yes, and given my life goals that frustrates me. Broken windows and letting small things slide until suddenly websites are sending you gigabytes just to load a basic webpage to no fuss. Someone needs to be opinionated about these factors.

              but I'm guessing it's because they liked it better than the alternatives.

              Sure, and all those likely come down to "It's just like what I always do". With no deeper thought into if what you always do is efficient. People are really good at adjusting around things they like, and criticizing things different even if it's potentially more efficient.

              I came here because it was Reddit, but better. There might well be better alternatives to Tildes, but it works for me. I like it, the community's great, it's easy to use.

              Fwiw I came here because it has a lot of anti-reddit patterns. Not just community. I don't feel like if I miss a post for a few hours that no one will ever read later discussion. I feel like things don't devolve into a shouting match when any slightly controversial opinion is said (discussion is fine, flinging insults as those long Reddit chains oft do isn't discussion). There's simple but obvious features here that Reddit hasn't implemented in nearly 20 years, like proper tagging and a better voting/reporting system.

              That's more or less my underlying philosophy for why I care about efficiency. It's less about the actual time saved and more about the ability to take a brief step back and introspect, to break down your mindset instead of just cling to something with a justification of "I like this, I am comfy". That "comfy" mindset is how you lead into the tribalism and inabilities to criticize the tools you use everyday. Why people defend platforms they don't own, owned by people who don't know you and turn on you at any moment.

              Judging people for their choices instead of being introspective about why people didn't give a platform 'a proper shake' seems to be the most common through-line among FOSS evangelists.

              Hope the above explains my mindset better. I just want people to try and not fall for blatant lies, as my country is oft to do as of late. We just need to spend a few minutes trying to understand what we consume in general instead of reacting to it way too late.

              Way too late for Twitter was arguably before Musk even purchased it. I think the time he immediately unbanned nazis was the Event Horizon, but it still took 3 more years to really gather that momentum. Probably not even because of policy, simply because "bigger people" got fed up first. Could you see what that frustrates me? Not because people made their move, but because "influencers" said so? I just want people to be mindful.

              4 votes
              1. [6]
                Comment deleted by author
                Link Parent
                1. raze2012
                  Link Parent
                  I don't disagree at all. I heard similar arguments on a recent-ish video (13 minutes). Maybe leans a bit too hard on focusing down GIMP, but I understand the message. It's just tough, even if we...

                  I get your frustration, but without FOSS teams investing a lot in UX and first impressions - and reducing friction to non-techy users - your frustration will always remain.

                  I don't disagree at all. I heard similar arguments on a recent-ish video (13 minutes). Maybe leans a bit too hard on focusing down GIMP, but I understand the message.

                  It's just tough, even if we discard some personalities focused on "workflow efficiency" because of historical factors. Those who contribute to FOSS tend to either be well off or otherwise in a situation where they can dedicate time on the side to working on something. And given how well tech compensates, there's more people like this who can focus on their passions without financial incentive.

                  Artists/designers are the exact opposite, for opposite and unfortunate historical reasons of respect and compensation. So very few can literally afford to go off and help out some programmers with a better feeling interface. Those software that can tend to be for profit (and hence, not free and often not open source). It's quite the conundrum unless you're one of the few huge FOSS communities gaining 10's,100's of thousands of dollars of donations to afford some paid staff.

                  I'll also note that I almost never hear people in tech talking down on artists. Maybe the idea of that a better looking front end is shallow work, but most people here still are visual creatures who can appreciate a nice looking interface implementing solid design principles. We're just in two different worlds with very few bridges.

                  Another point I'd make - and I'm not levelling this at you - is that consumers fucking hate being talked down to

                  Noted, but funnily enough I responded to this similar topic on a completely different post:

                  When you talk down but make people happy, you're a leader. When you talk down but make people sad or mad or anything else, you're "bossy". In my eyes, it's less about the action and more about the reaction.

                  I think one key to introspection is also how you're taking criticism. Yes, there are definitely people in the FOSS community who infamously talk down to someone as a person and that is thankfully a slowly dying stereotype. But sometimes people do need to understand when one is criticizing the tools and not you as a person. If you feel that tool is an extension of yourself, that may be part of the issue. You are not Twitter, nor Apple/Android, nor Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft, nor Nvidia/AMD. Don't define yourself by what you consume (especially consumption owned by billionaires who don't need defending).

                  This is actually something done much better by artists. Artists need critique and to disassociate their literal creations from their self-worth. Programmers can get more comparatively defensive over their code, even if they are usually much more objective critiques. More reasons to hope one day more artists join in FOSS.

                  I wish people would try and understand what they consume instead of reacting to it far too late, too. But again, priorities.

                  Minor aside: while I don't necessarily mind people de-prioritizing tech (it's probably for the best), but I sure do wish we had more collective priorities to do together. Food supply chain sucks, but what if we could all band together and write to represenatives about how that sucks and for them to priotiize it?

                  I just feel so powerless, stuff like this could at least give us a chance of actually fixing much more important inefficiencies (or coporate greed).

                  3 votes
                2. [3]
                  raze2012
                  Link Parent
                  It's not impossible, but the idea goes directly against the idea of what VC's tend to do and want (stakes in a company and promises of X profit). They'd be more like angel vestors or platinum...

                  Free, Open Source Software doesn't accept VC funding (as far as I'm aware), so it's like trying to push back the ocean with a broom.

                  It's not impossible, but the idea goes directly against the idea of what VC's tend to do and want (stakes in a company and promises of X profit). They'd be more like angel vestors or platinum donors (e.g. Epic giving grants to FOSS like Blender) instead if they gave it out.

                  But you can in fact monetize FOSS in indirect ways. Godot formed a separate-ish team that is dedicated to porting games to consoles (because any console code is under NDA). Red Hat monetizes various support networks for other businesses using Linux. Asperite (very well known pixel art editor) sells directly on Steam a pre-built version promising immediate support while anyone is free to go to the codebase and build it themselves.

                  But such monetization comes far down the line after gaining some base popularity. It's not going to be there when you arguably need the funds for staff the most. Someone needs to believe in your bad UX product so maybe later you can get a good UX product and get people.

                  1 vote
                  1. [2]
                    nukeman
                    Link Parent
                    I feel like the Red Hat model makes the most sense. Companies are very happy to have dedicated support, while the actual product is free to use.

                    I feel like the Red Hat model makes the most sense. Companies are very happy to have dedicated support, while the actual product is free to use.

                    1 vote
                    1. sparksbet
                      Link Parent
                      It makes a lot of sense for Red Hat's domain, but it might not for another domain. It depends a lot on what your software is built for and who your users are/will be.

                      It makes a lot of sense for Red Hat's domain, but it might not for another domain. It depends a lot on what your software is built for and who your users are/will be.

                      1 vote
                3. heraplem
                  Link Parent
                  The thing is, as long as the thing they migrate to is another centralized space owned by rich people, this cycle will just happen again in the future. Facebook was already bad before Mark...

                  I'm like a lot of people at the moment - trying to get my family to migrate off Meta platforms because of the founder being a Nazi.

                  The thing is, as long as the thing they migrate to is another centralized space owned by rich people, this cycle will just happen again in the future. Facebook was already bad before Mark Zuckerberg turned Nazi, because the possibility of that happening was latent in it from the beginning.

                  It's extremely dangerous for democracy that our most popular channels of communication cannot be held accountable.

                  1 vote
      2. [3]
        TurtleCracker
        Link Parent
        Honestly is it that big of a deal if these platforms corrupt themselves and die? It happens often enough and we get to experience the rise and fall of a new social media platform. It's fun for...

        Honestly is it that big of a deal if these platforms corrupt themselves and die? It happens often enough and we get to experience the rise and fall of a new social media platform. It's fun for awhile, then it gets worse, then it dies.

        1. onceuponaban
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          If that's all this was about, sure. Problem is, since this cycle is being maintained by the massive tech megacorps that by now have control of most of the modern web, they get to commit abuse on...

          If that's all this was about, sure. Problem is, since this cycle is being maintained by the massive tech megacorps that by now have control of most of the modern web, they get to commit abuse on the entire userbase each time the enshittification cycle repeats for the sake of greed without at any point being held accountable or escaping this mess being a credible option for users because who's going to commit to shutting themselves off from social media as a whole?

          Even I, with all the outspoken disdain I have for the harm these corporations have caused and fitting the asocial nerd stereotype to a T on top of that, still have a Reddit account I actively use, and they're certainly not innocent in this matter (though given how a large part of this website's community came here I'm mostly preaching to the choir). Most would find it a lot more difficult to flee the same platforms that most people they know use to talk to each other.

          And that's how you end up with Twitter warping from a benign platform for shortform messages to a planet-wide propaganda machine in the service of fascism backed by one of the richest men on Earth. Sure, it'll collapse and die under the weight of its own rot eventually, but how much damage will it have done until that happens? And that's just Twitter.

          Post-edit note the entire second paragraph was added a day after the initial comment from what I originally intended to be a much more minor edit.
          4 votes
        2. raze2012
          Link Parent
          It's a philisophical question and there's no wrong answer. I liken the metphor to any physical hangout space shutting down. Some people will just move to something similar next door. Others will...

          we get to experience the rise and fall of a new social media platform.

          It's a philisophical question and there's no wrong answer. I liken the metphor to any physical hangout space shutting down. Some people will just move to something similar next door. Others will have sentiments buried and maybe even some communities break up over the act.

          I also cynically hate the idea of a cycle where I go to a cool place, make someone else very rich from their unethical practices, then just jump right back to the next potential billionaire leech. I know it's not literally a commons, but a forum's goal should not be to extract wealth from the people.

          4 votes
    3. [5]
      post_below
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      This has always been FOSS' achilles heel in terms of mass adoption. People don't care about your tech, they care how it feels to use it, and unfortunately UX isn't often a FOSS developer strength....

      FOSS advocates don't seem to understand that the vast majority of people don't understand and don't care about FOSS.

      This has always been FOSS' achilles heel in terms of mass adoption. People don't care about your tech, they care how it feels to use it, and unfortunately UX isn't often a FOSS developer strength. Usually the process relies on someone else coming along and wrapping the FOSS project in an accessible UX. Without that step mastodon never had a chance.

      Unfortunately good UX isn't usually free, it takes money, often angel money... and then you get Bluesky.

      The answer, from a FOSS perspective, is to be the one(s) to create a better experience around mastodon or some other project and have it ready for the next mass migration.

      In the same vein, explaining to people why mastodon isn't really hard when they're saying it feels hard is a very tech centric sort of blindness. Subjective reality is the one that counts when it comes to mass adoption.

      14 votes
      1. [3]
        imperialismus
        Link Parent
        You just reminded me of the endless discussions about Linux on the desktop in the early 2000s. Every year was predicted to be the year when finally Linux on the desktop breaks through into the...

        People don't care about your tech, they care how it feels to use it, and unfortunately UX isn't often a FOSS developer strength. Usually the process relies on someone else coming along and wrapping the FOSS project in an accessible UX. Without that step mastodon never had a chance.

        You just reminded me of the endless discussions about Linux on the desktop in the early 2000s. Every year was predicted to be the year when finally Linux on the desktop breaks through into the mainstream. What happened instead was something nobody really predicted back in like 2003: Linux did become the most popular consumer OS, but in the form of Android. Beause Android doesn't feel like Linux and only 0.1% of users -- that's probably a generous estimate -- even care that it's based on Linux under the hood.

        And that initiative didn't come from the FOSS world, it came from one of the world's largest tech companies.

        9 votes
        1. [2]
          ButteredToast
          Link Parent
          This is somewhat repeating itself in the Steam Deck, a form of Linux which is becoming popular thanks to the efforts of a corporation to produce smooth UX between compatibility improvements and...

          This is somewhat repeating itself in the Steam Deck, a form of Linux which is becoming popular thanks to the efforts of a corporation to produce smooth UX between compatibility improvements and console-like front end in Steam. Round off the sharp corners and make it effortless to use and people will come.

          9 votes
          1. vord
            Link Parent
            And the worst thing is, all it takes is like 3 companies like Valve to choose openness instead of secrets. You hear me, device makers? Come in real close. THERE IS NO COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE TO...

            And the worst thing is, all it takes is like 3 companies like Valve to choose openness instead of secrets.

            You hear me, device makers? Come in real close.

            THERE IS NO COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE TO CLOSED DRIVERS ANYMORE. ALL YOU DO IS MAKE ALL OF YOUR CUSTOMER'S LIVES HARDER.

            5 votes
      2. ButteredToast
        Link Parent
        UX and overall polish are paramount, as is marketability. Those two things are nearly entirely why the iPod became wildly popular as competitors faded into obscurity (among other examples). I...

        UX and overall polish are paramount, as is marketability. Those two things are nearly entirely why the iPod became wildly popular as competitors faded into obscurity (among other examples).

        I think it’s possible for FOSS projects to have good UX, but it’s going to take project leadership that’s willing to invest some portion of donated funds into things like designers (both UI and commercial), user trials, etc. Overwhelmingly FOSS projects are led by purely technical types (usually engineers) which lends to superiority on that front but comes at the cost of appeal beyond a small niche. Ideally you want someone who understands both the technical and human sides of projects at the helm, but such individuals are rare and are usually monopolized by companies with much larger pocketbooks.

        The other thing that can help here is if a project’s members break the chicken-egg cycle of “no users, no donations” by starting off with an extremely focused, minimal feature set and making UX/polish a focus. If an app/service feels good enough to use, it will catch attention (and thus, increase contributions) even if it doesn’t have every bell and whistle imaginable. People want to see the potential in projects and partake in their success, but have trouble doing that when said projects feel like they’re bound by twine and duct tape.

        8 votes
    4. [18]
      elight
      Link Parent
      I don't understand the dings against Mastodon's UX. At least, on iOS, there's Ivory. It's from the makers of the former best third party Twitter app. Surely there's similar on Android? The UX...

      I don't understand the dings against Mastodon's UX. At least, on iOS, there's Ivory. It's from the makers of the former best third party Twitter app.

      Surely there's similar on Android?

      The UX issues makes sense to me around the "what's an instance and how do I choose" part.

      And, ok, search is deliberately anemic as an abuse protection.

      12 votes
      1. [4]
        Eji1700
        Link Parent
        So to break this down in your own post: There's an alternative 3rd party app that makes things better on at least one platform. You must understand the "what's an instance and how do I choose" You...

        I don't understand the dings against Mastodon's UX. At least, on iOS, there's Ivory. It's from the makers of the former best third party Twitter app.

        Surely there's similar on Android?

        The UX issues makes sense to me around the "what's an instance and how do I choose" part.

        And, ok, search is deliberately anemic as an abuse protection.

        So to break this down in your own post:

        1. There's an alternative 3rd party app that makes things better on at least one platform.
        2. You must understand the "what's an instance and how do I choose"
        3. You admit the search sucks because it's solving an issue most aren't aware of.

        That's at least 3 hurdles that twitter and it's friend doesn't have. IF you're going to have these hurdles you need to either abstract them out or explain them extremely well. Mastadon as it stands does neither very well.

        26 votes
        1. [3]
          vord
          Link Parent
          Here's the answer: It's like email. You pick a server and you use it. You can still interact with people who chose different. Everything else is nuance that can be ignored until later....

          You must understand the "what's an instance and how do I choose"

          Here's the answer: It's like email. You pick a server and you use it. You can still interact with people who chose different. Everything else is nuance that can be ignored until later.

          Alternatively, don't bring up instances at all. Link them to one of the big ones and call it a day.

          5 votes
          1. Eji1700
            Link Parent
            This is arguably what they should've done forever ago.

            Alternatively, don't bring up instances at all. Link them to one of the big ones and call it a day.

            This is arguably what they should've done forever ago.

            4 votes
          2. crdpa
            Link Parent
            People don't really understand email either. They just create one via Android/Google automatic process. If it's not there in your face one click away, it won't stick. Free and FOSS alternative to...

            People don't really understand email either.

            They just create one via Android/Google automatic process.

            If it's not there in your face one click away, it won't stick.

            Free and FOSS alternative to social medias won't stick because they aren't extremely rich anyway. That boat has sailed.

            It will forever be a billionaires game.

            4 votes
      2. TheRtRevKaiser
        Link Parent
        Onboarding and discoverability were two of the major complaints that I've seen, and they map with my limited experience. But the discoverability problem is probably exacerbated by there being a...

        Onboarding and discoverability were two of the major complaints that I've seen, and they map with my limited experience. But the discoverability problem is probably exacerbated by there being a lot fewer users on Mastodon in general. Also, and this isn't necessarily the fault of Mastodon in general, but the Mastodon instance that I wound up on had this really eye-searing three-column layout that was just an absolute firehose of garbage and was pretty off-putting. Combined with the fact that it was so hard to find anybody that I wanted to follow in the first place made it a pretty underwhelming experience. Bluesky was extremely simple to sign up for, and it was easy to find accounts to follow, especially with starter packs.

        13 votes
      3. ButteredToast
        Link Parent
        I’ve been using Mastodon for my tiny online circle for a year or two now, but have also been making use of Bluesky since about a month before the US elections. For most of that time my client of...

        I’ve been using Mastodon for my tiny online circle for a year or two now, but have also been making use of Bluesky since about a month before the US elections. For most of that time my client of choice has been Ivory.

        The problem is that the mental models of most people (especially those who are non-technical) have a difficult time accommodating both client and server being entirely independent (free choice of client) and there being multiple servers to choose from, and the official app that most of the curious will land on doesn’t make for a particularly good first impression. After being disappointed with the official app, they don’t go looking for a good client, they either go back to Twitter or find something that’s a closer analogue to Twitter (including a better first-party app).

        I don’t think its branding does it any favors, either. While “mastodon” isn’t the worst brand out there, it’s not catchy, is a word that leans obscure in popular vocabulary, and is difficult to produce a clean, memorable logo mark for. None of these are issues for Bluesky.

        Plus, even the good clients have their warts. It drives me nuts that Ivory doesn’t support multi-posting for example, which is a must for dealing with character limits sometimes. Bluesky supports this out of the box.

        7 votes
      4. hungariantoast
        Link Parent
        Don't bother trying to understand it. People are always endlessly critical of the best-meaning thing in any category. You'll drive yourself crazy trying to understand why.

        Don't bother trying to understand it. People are always endlessly critical of the best-meaning thing in any category. You'll drive yourself crazy trying to understand why.

        5 votes
      5. [10]
        Minori
        Link Parent
        Also, not seeing the number of likes or replies before you click on a post/toot adds extra friction to the experience. It's an intentional design decision which I disagree with.

        Also, not seeing the number of likes or replies before you click on a post/toot adds extra friction to the experience. It's an intentional design decision which I disagree with.

        1 vote
        1. [5]
          vord
          Link Parent
          I have a question... What bearing does it have? The only answer that comes to mind is "So I can like what has already been liked."

          I have a question... What bearing does it have?

          The only answer that comes to mind is "So I can like what has already been liked."

          3 votes
          1. [3]
            stu2b50
            Link Parent
            It's a heuristic. A post with a lot of likes or replies implies things about it. For instance, a post with a lot of replies but not a lot of likes is probably something controversial, and inspired...

            It's a heuristic. A post with a lot of likes or replies implies things about it. For instance, a post with a lot of replies but not a lot of likes is probably something controversial, and inspired controversial discussion. A post with a lot of likes, but no replies is probably well agreed upon. And so forth.

            7 votes
            1. [2]
              vord
              Link Parent
              And you touch on the problem (and there are studies I don't have the time to dig up right now): You can take two neutral pictures, a cat or a dog. Have one showing 7000 likes and the other 10...

              And you touch on the problem (and there are studies I don't have the time to dig up right now):

              You can take two neutral pictures, a cat or a dog. Have one showing 7000 likes and the other 10 likes.

              The vast majority people you show the two posts to will prefer the one with more likes. Even if you swap the picture.

              Showing likes and replies merely encourages hivethink.

              7 votes
              1. stu2b50
                Link Parent
                It's a tradeoff, in the end. Some people may prefer your approach, but the consequence is that you'll have to wade through more "bad" posts, and some users, or most users, may not want to do that....

                It's a tradeoff, in the end. Some people may prefer your approach, but the consequence is that you'll have to wade through more "bad" posts, and some users, or most users, may not want to do that. And if that causes people to prefer Bluesky, then it is what it is.

                5 votes
          2. Minori
            Link Parent
            For replies, it's because I care about discussion. I mean that's why Tildes has a comment count and tells you if there are new comments. If someone makes a statement like "here's the world's...

            For replies, it's because I care about discussion. I mean that's why Tildes has a comment count and tells you if there are new comments. If someone makes a statement like "here's the world's newest room temp semiconductor!" and there are a million replies that's useful to know even before I click in.

            4 votes
        2. [4]
          public
          Link Parent
          How is that remotely useful? Judge each post on its own merit.

          How is that remotely useful? Judge each post on its own merit.

          2 votes
          1. [3]
            Minori
            Link Parent
            As u/stu2b50 mentioned, it's a heuristic. I could click into every post to look for a discussion, but why should I have to? Let's say I look up a trending hashtag and want to engage in the...

            As u/stu2b50 mentioned, it's a heuristic. I could click into every post to look for a discussion, but why should I have to?

            Let's say I look up a trending hashtag and want to engage in the discussion. It'd be useful to know which posts have zero replies and which have hundreds.

            2 votes
            1. [2]
              public
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              You’ve convinced me on reply count—for threaded conversations, perhaps even separate numbers for direct replies and all child comments. Hundreds of direct replies and not many more total child...

              You’ve convinced me on reply count—for threaded conversations, perhaps even separate numbers for direct replies and all child comments.

              • Hundreds of direct replies and not many more total child comments? All zero-value reactions, no discussion
              • 400 total child comments with seven direct replies? Either an endless back-and-forth slapfight or there’s a reply further in that’s gaining garbage reaction replies.
              • 50 total child comments and eight replies? Perhaps a real discussion exists.

              I still think like counts should be suppressed in the default view. Do not allow users to judge based on social proof.


              EDIT: after thinking about the above…

              Instead of total child comments and direct replies both given as raw totals, share the total count and the percentage of direct replies.

              • ≥50% direct replies = nothing but zero-content reactions or "'I loved it' / 'thankx'" pairs
              • ⅕ to ⅓ direct replies = highest likelihood of worthwhile discussion
              • <10% direct response (all percentages may be empirically adjusted later based on actual behavior) = either it's an endless back-and-forth or the action is on some deeper child comment
              3 votes
              1. Minori
                Link Parent
                And unfortunately Mastodon will never include this information at the protocol level in part due to how decentralized it is. There are ways to design a decentralized protocol which would keep all...

                And unfortunately Mastodon will never include this information at the protocol level in part due to how decentralized it is. There are ways to design a decentralized protocol which would keep all this information, but it'll never be a native feature per the original developer.

                2 votes
    5. [8]
      kacey
      Link Parent
      I’m pretty out of the loop for this stuff — is there a reason to bring up how many people care about something in an article about it? I got the impression that the author was annoyed at some...

      I’m pretty out of the loop for this stuff — is there a reason to bring up how many people care about something in an article about it? I got the impression that the author was annoyed at some perceived misinformation on Bluesky’s part.

      Also why is FOSS advocate a slur recently? I saw that a lot on Hacker News, and between that and the anti-“tech person” sentiment elsewhere on tildes, I’ve started to get more aggressive about filtering out tech topics. This is hopefully the last one I’ll see for a while.

      As someone who genuinely cares about building usable tools for other people to enrich their lives, it’s a real crappy experience to see people vocally lump all my concerns and perspectives into a bogeyman.

      9 votes
      1. [5]
        stu2b50
        Link Parent
        The original title of the article was "Bluesky is a scam" - scam implies that there's a difference between customer expectations and the product that is delivered to them. The point, then, is that...

        The original title of the article was "Bluesky is a scam" - scam implies that there's a difference between customer expectations and the product that is delivered to them.

        The point, then, is that all the FOSS/decentralization stuff is effectively the same as when Microsoft or whoever puts "AI" in front of everything - it's techno-mumble-jumble and people just read it and go "yeah yeah your engineering is very good, you're very high tech, anyway".

        There isn't really a divergence, since what people want and expect out of Bluesky is "Twitter, but not musk" and "twitter, but not musk" is exactly what they get.

        15 votes
        1. [3]
          wervenyt
          Link Parent
          The reason there's that divergence comes down to the fact that users are not the customer. Investors, and eventually advertisers, are. So if investors bought in based on the marketing of bsky as...

          The reason there's that divergence comes down to the fact that users are not the customer. Investors, and eventually advertisers, are. So if investors bought in based on the marketing of bsky as open, they are being scammed.

          As someone who had hope for Dorsey maybe doing something fundamentally better than Twitter, I feel scammed, even if I lost nothing but hope. The majority of people not caring doesn't negate this degree of bait and switch, it just means the bait worked.

          3 votes
          1. [2]
            stu2b50
            Link Parent
            Ultimately I'd be very surprised if any advertisers or investors bought in because of the "decentralization". If anything, that makes monetization and advertising harder. Also, I'd also be very...

            Ultimately I'd be very surprised if any advertisers or investors bought in because of the "decentralization". If anything, that makes monetization and advertising harder.

            Also, I'd also be very surprised if the author of the article was concerned on behalf of investors.

            9 votes
            1. wervenyt
              Link Parent
              Sure. That's why I expressed my own feelings as well. As a total package, the investors were probably aware that the openwashing of bluesky would help get initial buy-in and overwhelm general...

              Sure. That's why I expressed my own feelings as well. As a total package, the investors were probably aware that the openwashing of bluesky would help get initial buy-in and overwhelm general network effect issues. As a result, anyone who believed the marketing was deceived, and the whole of the enterprise is founded at least partially on such false pretenses.

              Call it a scam or not, it still feels underhanded and deceptive. Getting mad at calling it a scam just feels like searching for a reason to dismiss the technical arguments while retaining a sense of superiority.

              4 votes
        2. kacey
          Link Parent
          Ah, that makes more sense. Apologies; I’d missed the title of the article while reading it.

          The original title of the article was "Bluesky is a scam" - scam implies that there's a difference between customer expectations and the product that is delivered to them.

          Ah, that makes more sense. Apologies; I’d missed the title of the article while reading it.

          1 vote
      2. frailtomato
        Link Parent
        I'm a FOSS advocate, but I have observed a startling disconnect between "normies" and people like us when extolling FOSS. So often - including in this thread - people will point out an obstacle to...

        Also why is FOSS advocate a slur recently?

        I'm a FOSS advocate, but I have observed a startling disconnect between "normies" and people like us when extolling FOSS. So often - including in this thread - people will point out an obstacle to adoption, and FOSS-folk will dismiss them out of hand while pointing out how "simple" it is to jump through hoops of unfamiliar words and tech stacks. I think it's simply a matter of losing touch and talking past one another. The other day I began to explain to a friend (a Javascript programmer!) my self-hosted stack and realised how much I've learned in the last two years. She was quickly lost in the small sea of terms I had casually dropped into the conversation.

        Seeing FOSS-folk dismiss people's concerns is frustrating. As somebody here pointed out, Mastodon's obstacles matter a whole lot when there's a much simpler product right there.

        10 votes
      3. wervenyt
        Link Parent
        I imagine this is what vegans feel like. Everyone, when pressed, tends to agree with your conclusions, but refuses to make changes based on their stated principles. If someone continues to...

        I imagine this is what vegans feel like. Everyone, when pressed, tends to agree with your conclusions, but refuses to make changes based on their stated principles.

        If someone continues to advocate for an unpopular idea that requires an ounce of buy-in, it seems like the collective response is to resort to ridicule and disregard rather than do the right thing, because if you ridicule something, it means it can't be correct. Such is politics. Welcome to the club of Immature Idealism, we've got plenty of yakshaving to share.

        9 votes
    6. scherlock
      Link Parent
      Also, now that the protocol has stabilized, it's open. The article is from 2023 when it was still going through major changes, they didn't want people complaining about breaking changes so you...

      Also, now that the protocol has stabilized, it's open. The article is from 2023 when it was still going through major changes, they didn't want people complaining about breaking changes so you need to ask nicely, but now https://atproto.com/ has no restrictions.

      8 votes
    7. Dr_Amazing
      Link Parent
      100% agreed. I didn't even know it was supposed to be all those things. I was just treating it as not Twitter.

      100% agreed. I didn't even know it was supposed to be all those things. I was just treating it as not Twitter.

      7 votes
    8. [8]
      OBLIVIATER
      Link Parent
      With how long it took people to quit Twitter even after Musk ruined it, its very clear that 99% of people couldn't care less about things like the article mentions. It's not like Jack Dorsey is...

      With how long it took people to quit Twitter even after Musk ruined it, its very clear that 99% of people couldn't care less about things like the article mentions. It's not like Jack Dorsey is some amazing person either, he just isn't quite as annoying as Elon is so he gets a pass. I think people forget how much bullshit he's pulled too.

      Edit: I wasn't aware Jack Dorsey wasn't a part of Bluesky anymore, makes sense because its not an NFT cypto site haha

      4 votes
      1. [7]
        Minori
        Link Parent
        Last I checked Dorsey is supporting Nostr...which this blog post actually links to at the bottom, so make of that what you will.

        Last I checked Dorsey is supporting Nostr...which this blog post actually links to at the bottom, so make of that what you will.

        6 votes
        1. [2]
          gil
          Link Parent
          This post has been written by Fiatjaf, Nostr's mysterious creator, that likes crypto, far-right conspiracy theorist Olavo de Carvalho and a bunch of other stuff I'm against. Not that I disagree...

          This post has been written by Fiatjaf, Nostr's mysterious creator, that likes crypto, far-right conspiracy theorist Olavo de Carvalho and a bunch of other stuff I'm against.

          Not that I disagree with them on this article, though. Bluesky is really trying to surf the "decentralized" wave while being just the same, I really doubt it'll ever be fully decentralized.

          2 votes
          1. Minori
            Link Parent
            Whelp, good to know my gut sense of bias was accurate.

            Whelp, good to know my gut sense of bias was accurate.

            1 vote
        2. [4]
          OBLIVIATER
          Link Parent
          I don't even know what Nostr is. Is it something crypto/blockchain related?

          I don't even know what Nostr is. Is it something crypto/blockchain related?

          1. [3]
            Minori
            Link Parent
            It's designed to be "censorship resistant" and is very popular in crypto spaces. It's another protocol-driven decentralized network. Here's their comparison with Mastodon. Nostr doesn't even...

            It's designed to be "censorship resistant" and is very popular in crypto spaces. It's another protocol-driven decentralized network. Here's their comparison with Mastodon. Nostr doesn't even bother comparing itself to Twitter or BlueSky.

            Dorsey has gone on record saying BlueSky is repeating all of Twitter's mistakes. I'm not sure I'd agree. BlueSky has some titans of system design backing their approach, and this article is a bit outdated coming from 2023.

            While BlueSky's approach is more centralized, the central authority can be distributed over multiple independently-owned servers. Bittorrent's centralization is a pretty apt comparison. The upsides around discoverability with user-selected algorithms, account portability, and composable plug-and-play moderation systems are all pretty huge for user experience. BlueSky's FAQ has more details and links.

            3 votes
            1. [2]
              Grumble4681
              Link Parent
              I find this weird he would view this as a criticism, because Twitter was seemingly quite successful at what it was doing. Even if you go to their financials, they had been struggling a long time...

              Dorsey has gone on record saying BlueSky is repeating all of Twitter's mistakes. I'm not sure I'd agree.

              I find this weird he would view this as a criticism, because Twitter was seemingly quite successful at what it was doing. Even if you go to their financials, they had been struggling a long time but if you look at their financials prior to the Musk purchase, they actually were improving. If the greatest condemnation of BlueSky is that it's repeating all of Twitter's mistakes, the greatest mistake Twitter seemed to have in terms of what led to its current predicament was that it was so successful it convinced the world's richest person to buy it to try to use it for his own advantages.

              Granted I did not like Twitter and don't like short form discussion and I think it's generally bad how people were using Twitter for any serious conversations or discussions, but I can still acknowledge it apparently captivated a lot of people that weren't me and it was seemingly still growing.

              5 votes
              1. OBLIVIATER
                Link Parent
                I think its worth considering that something Jack Dorsey considers as a "mistake" might not be the same thing that other people outside of the tech entrepreneur space consider a mistake.

                I think its worth considering that something Jack Dorsey considers as a "mistake" might not be the same thing that other people outside of the tech entrepreneur space consider a mistake.

                6 votes
    9. PuddleOfKittens
      Link Parent
      People don't care about federation... Until they do. The whole problem of switching away from Twitter is caused by a lack of federation. Federation is useful mainly if the shit hits the fan, and...

      People don't care about federation... Until they do.

      The whole problem of switching away from Twitter is caused by a lack of federation. Federation is useful mainly if the shit hits the fan, and people basically just don't worry about "what if my social media platform hits the fan in future?", because there's not much they can do.

      Of course having a janky experience is problematic, but that's not an argument against federation - it's an argument against switching to a very immature and unfinished system (which is what Mastodon was, when the shit hit the fan at Twitter and lots of people tried switching to it).

      3 votes
    10. raze2012
      Link Parent
      Sad to bear, but not surprising. It just means they have to deal with inevitable poisonings of he well and either tolerating it for much too long, or doing the same song and dance of finding...

      FOSS advocates don't seem to understand that the vast majority of people don't understand and don't care about FOSS.

      Sad to bear, but not surprising. It just means they have to deal with inevitable poisonings of he well and either tolerating it for much too long, or doing the same song and dance of finding "bluesky without [insert complaint here]". But People these days seem so shortsighted and seem to be more reactionary than preventative. I wish we could change that.

      2 votes
  2. creesch
    Link
    I am sure there are valid points in the article. But, that's not what the word scam means, at least not how it is commonly used. It's the sort over the top headline that is either clickbait,...

    I am sure there are valid points in the article. But, that's not what the word scam means, at least not how it is commonly used. It's the sort over the top headline that is either clickbait, coming from a position of ideological entrenchment or possibly both. In all cases I now need to pay extra attention and read between the lines to figure out what is actually going on.

    Meaning that I am more likely to not read the article in the first place.

    Looking over it loosely it seems to mostly coming down to the author disliking very specific aspects of Bluesky. Which if you squint really hard you might be able to classify as a scam in those specific areas?

    42 votes
  3. LetterCounter
    Link
    I view bluesky as an alternative to Twitter. I don't care about the fediverse, and if they chose to do a half implementation of it, I couldn't care less. I just dont want to support the Musk-rat...

    I view bluesky as an alternative to Twitter. I don't care about the fediverse, and if they chose to do a half implementation of it, I couldn't care less.

    I just dont want to support the Musk-rat and his nazi friends.

    21 votes
  4. [3]
    nocut12
    Link
    I agree that calling Bluesky "decentralized" is be a bit much — and I don't think it's great to pitch it that way — but I think there's some good stuff about it in important places. It isn't...

    I agree that calling Bluesky "decentralized" is be a bit much — and I don't think it's great to pitch it that way — but I think there's some good stuff about it in important places. It isn't really decentralized, but there are some pretty good off ramps built into it. Another company, motivated group of users, or even publicly funded service provider could step in and provide a replacement. You probably couldn't do it yourself though.

    The PDS idea and supporting domains as user IDs helps make it easier to take your content elsewhere while keeping your identity consistent. The feed generator and content labeler ideas make it pretty doable to replace important chunks of the functionality, which helps with the "CEO goes crazy" situation Twitter had. I think those are both real benefits over the usual approach to building this kind of thing. The DID issue is real though, and I hope they can improve things there. It honestly seems hard to come up with an actually decentralized solution that doesn't involve some blockchain stuff, which I suspect the userbase would find distasteful. Even with the DID caveats, I think this kind architecture is pretty good step forward — sure, it's not really decentralized, but you aren't so locked in.

    I think this kind of semi-centralized approach has come out on top in other areas too. Truly decentralized file sharing schemes exist (GNUtella, DHT peer exchange stuff, etc), but regular BitTorrent uses centralized trackers. Even though trackers are a little more fragile, they're a lot more convenient, and it's not like the actual data is lost when they go down. Guess which scheme people use more?

    8 votes
    1. [2]
      0xSim
      Link Parent
      It isn't decentralized at all. As long as bsky.app is the only way to access Bluesky, it's centralized. It doesn't matter if the protocol allows it or if your data can be stored elsewhere. The...

      It isn't really decentralized

      It isn't decentralized at all. As long as bsky.app is the only way to access Bluesky, it's centralized. It doesn't matter if the protocol allows it or if your data can be stored elsewhere.

      It honestly seems hard to come up with an actually decentralized solution that doesn't involve some blockchain stuff

      The fediverse and Mastodon are literally right there.

      5 votes
      1. nocut12
        Link Parent
        You can write other "app views" in ATProto, and some exist (here's one: https://frontpage.fyi/). I think that's really the key difference in design here: you could think of Mastodon as a network...

        You can write other "app views" in ATProto, and some exist (here's one: https://frontpage.fyi/). I think that's really the key difference in design here: you could think of Mastodon as a network of peers exchanging messages, while you could think of Bluesky/ATProto as an architecture for building social networks in public with composable/replaceable parts.

        As for the blockchain mention, I was specifically talking about identity. As far as I know, Mastodon identities and content are tied to the instance, and account redirects and moves are effectively relying on whoever operates that instance to cooperate. Account migration seems like the big sticking point for both ActivityPub and ATProto — ActivityPub seems to basically not have a solution for the data part, and ATProto's is hamstrung by the DID thing...

        They both have kind of the same goal (be a better, more open twitter). IMO, they're both close to that goal, but both have roadblocks stemming from their respective designs.

        5 votes
  5. [25]
    sunset
    Link
    Sounds like OP has an ideological axe to grind. It's depressing to see factually incorrect (and let's face it, 100% clickbait) titles like this being allowed here, this post should be removed.

    Sounds like OP has an ideological axe to grind.

    It's depressing to see factually incorrect (and let's face it, 100% clickbait) titles like this being allowed here, this post should be removed.

    25 votes
    1. cfabbro
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      I edited the Tildes topic title to be a slightly modified version of the article's lede. Hopefully that helps at least tone down the clickbait aspect of it a bit.

      I edited the Tildes topic title to be a slightly modified version of the article's lede. Hopefully that helps at least tone down the clickbait aspect of it a bit.

      20 votes
    2. [4]
      Promonk
      Link Parent
      I don't think it's factually incorrect, it just assumes different premises than the majority of Bluesky's users do. The author assumes the "openness" of the protocol (which was an emphasis in the...

      I don't think it's factually incorrect, it just assumes different premises than the majority of Bluesky's users do. The author assumes the "openness" of the protocol (which was an emphasis in the platform's earliest days) is the major draw for users, in which case, yeah, they've fallen down a bit.

      As others have said though, I think the main draw is in being Twitter without the baggage and with better responsiveness to user needs and demands. But if you're the sort of person who puts a lot of emphasis on the openness of a platform being integral to its continued ethics and success, then the criticisms leveled here are at least relevant, even if the thesis is skewed.

      8 votes
      1. TheJorro
        Link Parent
        The perspective of this article doesn't really reflect the title calling the whole thing a scam. In fact, the word "scam" doesn't appear in the article at all. This really seems like a...

        The perspective of this article doesn't really reflect the title calling the whole thing a scam. In fact, the word "scam" doesn't appear in the article at all.

        This really seems like a purposefully false headline just to bait.

        14 votes
      2. [2]
        sunset
        Link Parent
        Nah, the word "scam" has a very specific meaning, and it does not apply here at all. The title is factually incorrect. Even if you agree with the arguments in the article (which are extremely...

        Nah, the word "scam" has a very specific meaning, and it does not apply here at all. The title is factually incorrect. Even if you agree with the arguments in the article (which are extremely overblown), that still doesn't make Bluesky a scam.

        11 votes
        1. Promonk
          Link Parent
          I have to disagree that it has a very specific meaning. I'm seeing it used more and more to describe simple misrepresentation in contexts where money is involved. Besides which, the author is...

          Nah, the word "scam" has a very specific meaning, and it does not apply here at all.

          I have to disagree that it has a very specific meaning. I'm seeing it used more and more to describe simple misrepresentation in contexts where money is involved.

          Besides which, the author is trying to make the case that Bluesky's management is pulling a bait-and-switch, which is a sort of scam. I don't really agree with this interpretation, but I don't think it's entirely incongruent with the thesis.

          4 votes
    3. [14]
      slashtab
      Link Parent
      I have no ideological axe to grind. Title is a bit strong but the content is on point and I didn't know you can put different title than the original. Why when it doesn't align with your beliefs,...

      I have no ideological axe to grind. Title is a bit strong but the content is on point and I didn't know you can put different title than the original.

      Why when it doesn't align with your beliefs, it is me who is at fault?! I don't understand why you took it for political post when it is completely based on technical ground.

      concern regarding VC fund was raised in ghed.in blog and posted here few days earlier.

      People still believe bsky is FOSS and they can just fork it when something goes wrong, which far from truth. VC will come back to make money, a well observed pattern.

      8 votes
      1. [13]
        DefinitelyNotAFae
        Link Parent
        I think people took this as your own writing, though I'm not sure why. Now you know, change the headline however you like, without misrepresenting the article, and avoid click bait! Most people...

        I think people took this as your own writing, though I'm not sure why. Now you know, change the headline however you like, without misrepresenting the article, and avoid click bait!

        concern regarding VC fund was raised in ghed.in blog and posted here few days earlier.

        People still believe bsky is FOSS and they can just fork it when something goes wrong, which far from truth. VC will come back to make money, a well observed pattern.

        Most people don't believe any of that. Because they don't know what FOSS is. I don't know what FOSS is. And even when someone inevitably tells me what FOSS is - I'm starting to guess - I won't care because in no world was I ever going to fork it.

        The whole service, thus, is not a scam to me. Now, should I be concerned about the venture capital? Maybe. But I can't do anything about it, and Mastodon and the like are confusing and not the experience I'm looking for. Bluesky, thus far, is.

        15 votes
        1. [12]
          onceuponaban
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          This, right there, touches on the crux of the issue and why the general topic is so frustrating to me. Warning, rant inbound I am now realizing after writing the first paragraph that I'm launching...
          • Exemplary

          Most people don't believe any of that. Because they don't know what FOSS is. I don't know what FOSS is. And even when someone inevitably tells me what FOSS is - I'm starting to guess - I won't care because in no world was I ever going to fork it.

          This, right there, touches on the crux of the issue and why the general topic is so frustrating to me.

          Warning, rant inbound I am now realizing after writing the first paragraph that I'm launching into what's probably going to be a 1k+ words rant, so I'm backing up before carrying on to clarify that this is *not* meant to be an attack on you or an indictment toward anyone who doesn't feel as strongly on this subject (so long as it's not a matter of willful ignorance). I personally believe it's an important topic that merits to be expanded upon, but I understand that it's unrealistic for *everyone* to invest the time and effort that acting on my stance entails. Everyone has their own battles to fight, this happens to be one of mine.

          Computers are everywhere, used by everyone, for everything, and I mean this without hyperbole. Worldwide communication relies on them at every scale. Pretty much every industrial and bureaucratic processes have been computerized on some level. I wrote these words on one, and a whole chain of other computers brought it to the one you're using to read them right now. You most likely own one which is purpose-built to be brought along wherever you go (assuming it's not already the one currently in your hands). Most if not all your appliances are controlled by one. If you have a car, with vanishingly few exceptions, there's one in there too, and it has just as much control over your vehicle if not more than you do. The primary work tool for almost anyone with an office job, and many who don't, is a computer. Most sources of content for entertainment come in digital form, sometimes as the only option (including whole mediums that only exist because computers made them possible), and even when that's not the case, the process to create that content almost certainly involved computers. In many countries, access to a computer and access to civilization have become synonymous, to the point that you straight up can't participate in society without using one.

          And why wouldn't they be? At the most basic level, computers are machines capable of storing, displaying, processing, and transmitting data, of any kind, and any aspect of it can be automated. The potential of such a device is genuinely limitless. I don't think it would be a stretch to consider the advent of the computer to be as significant as the industrial revolution was. It's only natural that everyone jumped on it the moment we figured out how to make them affordable, and invested so much in improving the technology. Faced with this premise, the logical conclusion would be to think that every effort would be put into making sure the population at large is educated on their use, what they can do, and how to best leverage their power to enrich one's quality of life. Through learning how to write software, anyone who owns a computer has the ability to create their own tools to make their lives easier. Even if you don't have the time, or the expertise, to write it yourself, awareness of the workings of the tools you rely on in every aspect of your life can only be useful. Of course, it would be unrealistic to expect everyone to drop what they're doing and study the field of algorithmics and computer science. However, given how much of a paradigm shift this represents, ensuring the population has easy access to learning resources, as well as making sure it's an important part of school education so people at least have the basics down ought to be a high priority.

          Even if computing as a subject of study isn't the focus of the layman, people should be prepared for the challenges that would inevitably arise as computing embeds itself into the core of our civilization. After all, in the same way computing enables boundless creation, automation and communication reach with an ease previous technologies could only dream of, it can just as easily be weaponized and cause catastrophic harm both in the direct and indirect sense. Not accounting for that as a society by leaving everyone to their own devices with no awareness of how useful and dangerous this now omnipresent tool can be would not only be a horrible waste of potential, but also a massive threat, leaving the door open for bad actors to potentially usurp the very framework of our civilization. Surely we wouldn't commit such a monumental mistake. As a definitely random example, surely we wouldn't let corporate interests dictate whether people should be able to inspect the inner workings of software they use, modify them to better fit their use, and share the resulting modifications to help people who have the same needs? Surely we wouldn't let these same corporate interests overtake entire industrial and creative fields by having sole control over the tools that everyone adopted and are now depending on for the sake of interoperability, with no ability to hold them accountable if they were to abuse that position? Surely we wouldn't allow them to force users to accept that they don't get to have control over the hardware they bought and the software that runs on it because that would hinder the company's all-important profit growth until no one is able to avoid being exploited by a handful of megacorps because decent alternatives to the software they made industry standard if not outright required to interact with society aren't available and they're actively obstructing any effort to change that, right? ...Yeah, I'm not exactly being subtle here, am I?

          ...So, yeah, cutting to the chase, no one in a position of power cared enough to prevent this exact mess (or actively worked toward it, knowingly or not) and now we're stuck because malicious actors have a stranglehold over the technology we all depend on to do pretty much anything, with the software industry engaged in a race to the bottom. And, since not only no focus has been put toward fostering interest in programming as a common skill or even basic computer use, letting corporate interests take care of that with predictable consequences, the general population is left completely powerless and worse, unaware of why this is an issue. Sure, everyone notices the particularly notable offenses, but they don't know the sheer extent of how much they're being screwed over, and they don't have the required knowledge to even understand it if someone were to try to explain it (take a wild guess at how I might have reached that conclusion 🙃). Leading to the general population treating basic computer literacy as something beyond them. Anything beyond the strict use cases outlined by slick black box software designed to be dead simple to use and at the same time surrender control of your computer to them (and by extension your way of interacting with the world in most aspects) is seen as pointless (because they don't know or don't care about the underlying threat) or too difficult to attempt (What do you mean install Linux? What's an OS? Wait, can I even play my games on that? What about Photoshop, I need that to work!). Anything that encourages breaking out of this walled garden is discouraged (why would you bother listening to some nerd warning you about some overblown apocalyptic threat because the programs you and everyone else are using are supposedly evil? the computer is working fine, right?). And programming, the thing that literally anyone with a computer and enough time and curiosity could try and holds the key to bring back sanity to the software landscape? Might as well be sorcery.

          Obviously not everything is doom and gloom, the knowledge base to get started on learning about computers and programming does exist for anyone who is interested, initiatives to build a more independent software infrastructure that people can contribute to with some very successful examples are out there... and that's where your prophecy is fulfilled and I do in fact bring up FOSS, meaning Free and Open Source Software. If you've been paying attention to this entire wall of text so far you'll notice I've already alluded to it, but in essence it's the term for software whose source code is available to the public (generally with the expectation that a structure is in place to directly contribute), with the guarantee that you're allowed to make any change you want, and redistribute the resulting modified software. This guarantee is enforced through an open source license, giving it legal backing to prevent abuse. Free here is in the sense of freedom, not necessarily free of charge, so this doesn't necessarily mean it can't be monetized, but it does guarantee that the user has, provided they have the required knowledge, full control over what they can do with it. Without getting into overly narrow details, there is a subtle but important difference between FOSS and free software which is a subset that also specifies that redistributing modified free software must, itself, be done under a free software license preserving the right to use, modify, and redistribute for any purpose. This has meaningful implications regarding preventing closed source software from "stealing" free software for themselves, some good, some bad depending on who you ask, but that's straying away from the point I'm building to, so moving on.

          The long term goal of the free software movement is to end the deadlock the software industry is stuck in by driving adoption of software that is powered not by purely commercial interest but by its own userbase. The common adage of "If it's free [of charge], you're the product" is flipped on its head to become "It's free [as in freedom] because you're also the creator" (to a reasonable limit, of course, not everyone is going to suddenly become programmers just because the option to tweak your software is there, but even then programming is just one of many ways you can contribute to free software. Even just using the software and reporting bugs you encounter back to the project is helpful). This also ties in to a broader goal of promoting freedom of information as a whole. This isn't a panacea; the free software movement has its own internal struggles, some meaningful (did you expect corporations would sit by and let this threaten their interests without interfering?), some just the result of dumbasses with inflated egos ruining things for everyone else (I could go into a rant as long as this one just on that single part)... but I believe it's a much saner way to go than the corporate circus that's currently at the helm.

          Tying back into your original comment, obviously you as an end user aren't expected to take action by forking the codebase of an entire social media platform and maintain it yourself... but you can at least contact other people contributing to the project with suggestions and concerns you might have, and this extends to any free software you use. You would also have more confidence that the software you use isn't exploiting you (or has a massive security vulnerability waiting to be exploited) because more savvy users who do have the required knowledge can audit the source code and report their findings if they find something fishy. Picking a random example (for real this time): OpenSSL is a library that helps securing communication online. Whenever you're connecting to a website using HTTPS, the S is almost always implemented with openssl, or a derivative of it, under the hood. The Heartbleed scare originated from a security vulnerability found in its source code, potentially compromising every secure website ever. Sure, it's unfortunate that it happened in the first place, but the fact it was open-source software allowed the vulnerability to be discovered, reported, and fixed in a way closed source software wouldn't have allowed to. And no, software being closed source doesn't make it more secure by preventing bad actors from finding vulnerabilities in the code. Not only there are methods to study a program's behavior with no access to the source code (including straight up decompiling the software back to source code, it just won't be as readable), but if access to it is barred to the public, that's as many potential eyes that could spot an issue that are being wasted, overall weakening the security of the software. That is one of the aspects that make free software better than closed source software for everyone involved.

          And that is why you should care about software being FOSS, and why I encourage people to use it over closed-source software wherever they can. Sometimes the FOSS alternatives just don't fit your usecase, are simply not well developed enough for your needs, can't be used at scale because interoperability with the industry standard is being obstructed, or depending on the field the concept is straight up implausible without a radical change in people's outlook (the video game industry comes to mind). Naturally, I'm not saying you should delete your Bluesky account, uninstall windows, buy an entirely new machine just so it's compatible with coreboot and live as a digital hermit like Richard Stallman, that would be ludicrous and I certainly am not committing to free software to that extent myself.

          If you have the time and motivation to look into it, I highly recommend looking into which software you could replace with FOSS to whichever level of compromise you're willing to accept. If you are interested, but don't know where to start, feel free to reach out, I'm sure people, here on Tildes or elsewhere on the internet, will have useful advice. As for Bluesky itself... well, at least for now it sure as hell is better than Twitter's rotting carcass. And while I'm not convinced that it's shielded from what made its predecessor the shambling zombie it currently is (I personally put more stock on the Fediverse even if ironically enough I'm not active there), "isn't under the control of a shameless fascist billionaire" is a good start.

          10 votes
          1. [11]
            DefinitelyNotAFae
            Link Parent
            Thanks a lot for this, I really did appreciate it. /gen. I get your point and only have a few comments on it, because idealistically you're right and so if I don't comment on something, I'm not...

            Thanks a lot for this, I really did appreciate it. /gen. I get your point and only have a few comments on it, because idealistically you're right and so if I don't comment on something, I'm not ignoring it, I just don't have strong thoughts besides generally agreeing.

            My frustration definitely comes more from people acting everyone understands the jargon of the tech world. I know what open source means, but "FOSS" was not immediately intuitive in the context of the conversation. Like I implied in my post, I figured it out and then googled it to confirm, eventually, but the framing that it was important that the user thought it was FOSS because they'd think they could fork it. And like you said, that's not actually realistic, but that's how some tech folks talk, which both alienating and functionally ignores how everyone else engages with the same computer/internet/app/etc. and how they communicate about those things. It's the same reason I don't tend to use strict diagnostic language or speak in terms of therapeutic theories when talking about mental health because it's not really useful. FWIW your post did not suffer from this, and I appreciate that.

            Even if you don't have the time, or the expertise, to write it yourself, awareness of the workings of the tools you rely on in every aspect of your life can only be useful.

            Broadly I agree, and I absolutely grew up in the era of "girls don't get bought computers" while also learning some basic programming in DOS (might have been on the Gateway or that one might have come later, the cow box was iconic), and HTML because I had to set up that geocities website with a webring. As is required.

            Many of us are here (as in not programming knowledgeable) because that wasn't available further in school (typing yes, programming not really). I don't know enough about cars either, in part because my dad died a decade ago and in part because I wasn't the one to get taught car stuff. In the scheme of things, learning how to fix my own drywall is currently higher on my list than programming. Also we went into different degrees - as much as computers are everywhere so are people's brains. And people do not understand their OWN programming psychology much less other people's! /hj

            And programming, the thing that literally anyone with a computer and enough time and curiosity could try and holds the key to bring back sanity to the software landscape? Might as well be sorcery.

            I think it's not fair to say "literally anyone" can do it. I'm not doubting intelligence, but learning new languages is hard, and not everyone gloms onto programming languages as easily as others, in the same way that not everyone feels comfortable or is particularly good at having the deep mental health conversations that I do regularly. Plenty of folks get good at cars, or writing or knitting (literally coding with yarn! but by turning 1 dimensional objects into 2 dimensional ones, it's magic) which also are things that are fundamental. But I'd agree that our communities should be built of people who learn these things and share them with each other. Idealism though...

            And that's where your prophecy is fulfilled ...

            Look it was more the assumption that someone would insist on explaining it despite me saying I didn't care. I'm used to that sort of response on social media, including here. However, you sufficiently put enough effort into the rest of this post that I won't hold it against you ;-)

            Tying back into your original comment, obviously you as an end user aren't expected to take action by forking the codebase of an entire social media platform and maintain it yourself...

            As noted by my intro to this comment, that was what it felt like the previous commenter was intending, though their being heated in the moment could have obscured their intent.

            You would also have more confidence that the software you use isn't exploiting you (or has a massive security vulnerability waiting to be exploited) because more savvy users who do have the required knowledge can audit the source code and report their findings if they find something fishy.

            Does the average user actually have that increased confidence? Imagining a fully "FOSS" app store with no particular moderation of software, how quickly do they fill up with junk that reminds me of the old toolbar/mouse cursor days? How many garbage apps already exist and get pulled out of the app stores regularly? How do I know who the good/bad actors are in the space. Because in a perfect world, yes I could trust some experts - but what if that expert is the one trying to scam me? I'm not saying that it's not fixable or that it isn't better than the existing situation but from the outside it's not inherently easily trustworthy either. It's all well and good until "Gorthlax the Decoder" who I trusted actually wants to steal my shit. I'm not saying it won't be better, but I'm not necessarily inherently feeling more confident.

            If you have the time and motivation to look into it, I highly recommend looking into which software you could replace with FOSS to whichever level of compromise you're willing to accept.

            Unfortunately, my time is pretty eaten up by figuring out the hardware of the house, the software of people's brains, and being a caretaker at home while dealing with my own chronic stuff. And that's where it sort of breaks down, I need to be able to grab a thing and use it, and while I'm not opposed to choosing a "FOSS" option, switching from old options is more complicated than if I were seeking new things. The less user friendly the process is, and the more help I need to get there, though the less useful this is to the average human.

            But thank you, and I do appreciate it, I probably will be asking for more advice related to the home repair stuff before the software stuff. But you never know :)

            6 votes
            1. [4]
              onceuponaban
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              Going back up the thread to directly address something regarding the following point that hasn't occured to me until now, and I think it's significant enough to warrant a full comment and not an...
              • Exemplary

              Going back up the thread to directly address something regarding the following point that hasn't occured to me until now, and I think it's significant enough to warrant a full comment and not an edit:

              Tying back into your original comment, obviously you as an end user aren't expected to take action by forking the codebase of an entire social media platform and maintain it yourself...

              As noted by my intro to this comment, that was what it felt like the previous commenter was intending, though their being heated in the moment could have obscured their intent.

              One bit of important context is that while that's what Bluesky is perceived as now, it wasn't always being advertised as "Twitter but before it was ruined forever". Back when Bluesky was in its inception as an internal Twitter experiment, then an independent invite-only platform and the Elon Musk event horizon hadn't been crossed yet, the first wave of users were drawn in through the claim of providing the kind of openness that OP's linked article goes over and at the time, Bluesky focused its communication on that. I believe that general group is who the intended audience of that article is and who OP means by "People still believe bsky is FOSS and they can just fork it when something goes wrong" (@slashtab am I on the right track here?). The group of people in question would in its early days mostly be tech savvy users, most likely FOSS enthusiasts who, while understanding that this isn't a sensible thing to do in most cases in the context of an entire social media platform, do consider the ability to fork the software to be important. And under that lens, yeah, I definitely get why the article's author felt the need to use the word scam to qualify the lack of commitment on Bluesky's part to deliver on their claims. Sure, no money changed hands, but had I not been skeptical in the first place when it first showed up on my radar and decided to wait and see rather than jumping in, I suspect I would have felt betrayed on the level a scam would have been.

              This reminds me of a video essay (in three parts) that I find very insightful (though as a whole only very tangentially related to this topic) about DayZ (don't worry, I'm not going completely off-track), whose author, SovietWomble, a content creator also known for an infamously inconsistent upload schedule high effort subtitled highlight reels of video game streams (and being a variety streamer in general), goes over the practice of early access in the video game industry in the first part, and his view on the matter drawing from his experience in software QA, as well as the resulting implications for public expectation.

              One aspect that he goes over is what he calls in the essay "evangelist alienation". Due to the nature of early access, the first wave players, the ones that are drawn in by the unique aspect of the game being developed when there was no one else but the creator's own promotion of it to convince them despite the understanding that, as an unfinished product, lack of features and jank is to be expected, end up being the "evangelists", the core of your userbase, the people doing organic outreach to promote your product, the people assembling the communities forming around your game. They're the people who see the most potential in what your game has to offer and will do what they can to help you get there. These motivated and enthusiastic users are your greatest allies... so long as you don't turn them against you. The danger lies in the fact that these first wave users are by definition there because they liked the game's state as it was on initial release, regardless of whether it actually matches the creator's vision in the long term (or, if it initially was, that the development cycle ends up leading to a significant change of plan).

              They initially have faith that any issues the game happens to have as an expected consequence of it being early access will eventually be ironed out, and will have more goodwill than less invested users, but they do still have expectations of their own, and they will be based on what the game already was, not necessarily what you plan to make it into. If they weren't interested in that, they wouldn't be here to play it, after all. So, if over the development cycle toward full release the core identity of the game changes too much, no longer aligning with the core of your playerbase, you risk alienating them. And the risk that represents is much greater than simply losing these people as part of the playerbase.

              All the time and effort they invested to promote what they now see as longer fitting the expectations of what is ultimately a product they paid for isn't just a source of a feeling of disappointment, but of betrayal. Sure, people on average can be expected to be levelheaded, and in this situation would simply cut their losses, appreciate the time they enjoyed what the game used to be, and move on, but take into account that out of all your players, they are the most passionate about a game that no longer exists because of you, and you suddenly are faced with a much darker outcome for the fate of your game as a product. Remember, they were the most motivated among the first wave players, meaning that by that point they're established high profile members within the community they themselves built, and people listen to what they have to say, especially since it's entirely likely these same people brought them here in the first place.

              And just because the game they loved enough to spontaneously become your marketing arm is gone doesn't mean they're no longer motivated to praise it. In the worst case scenario, what was "I love this game" becomes "I loved when this game had this" which then becomes "I miss what this game used to be" which, if unaddressed, warps into "They destroyed this game and I hate it now". Your greatest supporters have become your greatest detractors, and they're the ones your community is listening to. And at this point, you're doomed. Even if you reverse course, the trust they had in you has been shattered, and with it so has the rest of the playerbase. Sometimes, early access projects fall through because the creators failed to deliver a compelling product, sometimes because they straight up made no effort to fix an obviously broken game, but sometimes it can stem from a simple misunderstanding from your earliest supporters boiling over into resentment. SovietWomble's conclusion on the matter is that it's extremely important for a creator to consider an early access release as, for the purposes of the core design of the game, the release, as expectations of the product will inevitably be based around what people first saw, regardless of which direction you want to take it to. Otherwise, that's how you get things like the commonly joked about "2k+ hours played - Not Recommended" reviews on Steam and communities imploding overnight because the people making up its bedrock got fed up. I'd recommend watching the whole essay as it has a lot more to cover (and if you are interested, yes, the subject of the overall three parts essay being DayZ with the concept I described taken from the very first part is some pretty unsubtle foreshadowing of where the essay is heading...), but none of it is relevant to my point, so moving on.

              Bluesky isn't an early access game, it is not a product people bought for money, it's a platform whose use is free of charge. The commitment to getting involved is lesser. Nonetheless, I believe a variant of the general principle applies here. People are going to hold you accountable to what was initially laid out as the plan for a given piece of software they adopted. And if you fall short of that or take it into a wildly different direction, the first wave users, the same people you first convinced to look into it, will remember that you didn't deliver. Leading to a similar outcome as the "evangelist alienation" outlined by SovietWomble in the context of video game early access. Hence the strong indictment, perhaps overly strong, from the author of the article OP linked to. Was the author a disappointed first wave user? The article doesn't state it and there's otherwise no indication toward it, so it could just as easily be someone who never was involved in Bluesky in the first place and simply has a strong dislike of what they perceive as dishonest claims compared to the platform they do use (the article ends with a Nostr link and while I never heard about this project before, it seems this one has a stronger focus on decentralization, akin to the Fediverse but with a significantly different design approach), and they definitely do have a point there. But I also see a similar vibe as when I witnessed various instances of this "evangelist alienation" phenomenon. Perhaps there's also a link to the fact that the userbase of any of these alternative platforms is by nature people who were fed up with the mainstream platform enough to commit to migrating, which fosters more passionate stances among these users, for better or worse.

              4 votes
              1. [2]
                DefinitelyNotAFae
                Link Parent
                Fwiw I've probably hit my limit on random extensive thoughts on this thread, as it's crossing over from conversation to lecture here (and I'm not watching a 3 part video). In short, this is why...

                Fwiw I've probably hit my limit on random extensive thoughts on this thread, as it's crossing over from conversation to lecture here (and I'm not watching a 3 part video).

                In short, this is why it's really helpful to not assume the experience and knowledge of everyone else, not to use clickbait headlines and to leave explanatory comments on the topic when possible. Because even if everyone here were techy not everyone would have all the context being assumed by the title and article

                Just my thoughts.

                3 votes
                1. onceuponaban
                  (edited )
                  Link Parent
                  I agree, and yeah, I'm also running out of steam on the subject. While I do have another tangent hook on where expectations over the development of early access video games (leading to the above)...

                  I agree, and yeah, I'm also running out of steam on the subject. While I do have another tangent hook on where expectations over the development of early access video games (leading to the above) and FOSS can converge and differ, that would put it three degrees of separation away from the original subject and firmly in the realm of off-topic, so I'll leave that thought for another day if it comes up in some other thread where it's more relevant (EDIT: come to think of it, I might also compile my thoughts so far into a blog article with that tangent tacked on, though I don't intend to publish it back to Tildes directly since pretty much everything I had to say is already right there in this thread, that would just be needless regurgitating.)

                  3 votes
              2. slashtab
                Link Parent
                First, thank you for writing this. It very well sums up the feelings towards the project. I'll also watch the video; from what you explained, it aligns with my interests. I'm one of those...

                First, thank you for writing this. It very well sums up the feelings towards the project. I'll also watch the video; from what you explained, it aligns with my interests.

                I'm one of those invite-only users of Bluesky and have completely shilled for it on Reddit and in communities on Discord. Mastodon, Bluesky, and Nostr were the three horses of decentralized platforms. You're very much right about what Bluesky meant to early adopters and, in some ways, still does. It wasn't just about moderation and blocklists.

                Is Bluesky better than X today? Yes, it is, but that isn't the topic of discussion. It was supposed to improve on ActivityPub technically while adhering to the same principles. Many people here are arguing that we don't need FOSS; we need a better experience and a safer place. That may be true, but again, this is not how the project started. Any other centralized media could have replaced it with those intentions. People with experience in this space can clearly see where it’s headed, but I hope we're wrong and that public, non-profit intentions prevail.

                Corporations often try to weaponize open source for their profit and gain popularity in a short time, which I resent. A familiar story is that of OpenAI—how it started, what it intended to do, and where it ended up.

                As one of the replies mentions, the title shouldn't assume everyone has all the context. I would say the title of a blog or article can't take everyone into consideration. The title's purpose is to reflect the content, and it does, perhaps a bit strongly. Readers also shouldn't assume they know all the context and dismiss a well-argued point about the project. Vastly, people don’t care about FOSS, but it is your responsibility to learn about the products you use daily and that have a significant impact on your life. It should be treated the same as reading a food label. If you can't do that, you're not a good consumer, and that is your fault.

                Again, @onceuponaban, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I look forward to reading more of your thoughts/opinions on such subjects.

                3 votes
            2. [6]
              onceuponaban
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              I'm glad that my diatribe was appreciated. Not to imply that you or anyone else here is apathetic about the issue, but I felt a general sentiment of detachment across the thread that worried me...

              I'm glad that my mostly accidental diatribe was appreciated. Not to imply that you or anyone else here is apathetic about the issue, but I felt a general sentiment of detachment across the thread that worried me enough that I wanted to address it... and two thousand characters later because I cannot be concise to save my life, here we are.

              My frustration definitely comes more from people acting everyone understands the jargon of the tech world. I know what open source means, but "FOSS" was not immediately intuitive in the context of the conversation

              ... I admit that I initially went into this under the assumption that you not understanding "FOSS" equated not being familiar with free software as a whole. By the time I realized this might have just been a terminology issue, I was a quarter into that post and figured I might as well see it through even if it wasn't as direct of a reply, and would be useful to onlookers who weren't as informed on the underlying context. XKCD 2501 strikes again (putting aside the fact I wouldn't consider myself "an expert" in computer science, but you get my point).

              I don't know enough about cars either

              Oof, I'm no better than the layman in that regard and I'm pretty sure cars are also one of those "technology with massive implications that society as a whole should care about making sure we're informed a lot more than we really are" subjects, which further highlights that expecting everyone to be aware of everything ever, even if it's really important, is unrealistic. I do think it's worth it to try and raise the bar when we can, though.

              I think it's not fair to say "literally anyone" can do it. I'm not doubting intelligence, but learning new languages is hard, and not everyone gloms onto programming languages as easily as others

              "literally anyone" might be an overstatement, yeah, serves me right for misusing the word literally when that's actually one of my pet peeves in the first place. Adjusting nuance a bit, it would be more accurate to say that, while I agree being great at programming to a professional level does require a state of mind that doesn't mesh well with many people's thought process (and that's not even getting into the time investment which might simply be out of reach), I also believe that the barrier to get an understanding of programming high enough to be useful is vastly, vastly overstated due to general lack of awareness. This is ultimately speculation as I have no hard data to back up the following claim, but I am reasonably confident that currently, the proportion of the worldwide population that has some actionable understanding of programming is lower by at least an order of magnitude than those who, given the opportunity, could learn programming and have it be a useful skill in their life. I'm certain we can do better than we currently are.

              Look it was more the assumption that someone would insist on explaining it despite me saying I didn't care. I'm used to that sort of response on social media, including here.

              No shade intended, my intention in the wording was mostly to make light of the fact I did end up doing exactly that, even if by that point in writing it the only reason I actually did was because I felt it was necessary context for whoever the reader might be rather than assuming you specifically needed to know.

              As noted by my intro to this comment, that was what it felt like the previous commenter was intending, though their being heated in the moment could have obscured their intent.

              It's not my place to speak in the name of the previous commenter, but given I seem to hold similar concerns, I wouldn't be surprised by the latter. I will fully admit that irritation was one of the factors that pushed me to write my own comment before I cooled down mid-writing, did a much needed editing pass for tone and carried on for the sake of sharing my thoughts in general.

              Does the average user actually have that increased confidence?

              That is absolutely a valid concern. Windows' wild west approach of "look up whatever you want through a search engine, make sure you found the software's official site and not a fake one trying to get you to download malware, find installer (among possibly malicious ads trying to trick you into clicking them instead), execute installer, ensure the installer isn't trying to sneak in adware, congrats you're done, also keeping it updated from now on is wholly up to you btw, good luck" is... suboptimal, but the free software space isn't free of unwelcome surprises either. As an example, in the context of Linux distributions (Ubuntu, Fedora, Linux Mint, Arch Linux, etc.) the general concept of an app store is often implemented as a software repository administrated by the distribution maintainers, packaged according to the needs of that specific distribution, and made available through a package manager to the user, allowing them to install whatever software is available inside that repository (either directly through the terminal, or through a graphic application that offers a more user-friendly interface, usually itself a front-end to the terminal program). This is also used as a unified software updating system, think Windows Update but applied to all programs on your computer.

              One of the repositories used on Arch Linux, the AUR (Arch Linux User Repository), is fully community maintained, meaning anyone could package software and put it up on the AUR, as opposed to Arch Linux's regular repositories where maintaining software packages is up to an established circle of trusted users, with measures in place to ensure that any actions on the repository can in fact be traced back to these trusted users. This repository is deliberately not made available as part of the repositories you can use by default, but you can interact with it on a package by package basis after looking up what you need, and of course there are helper applications to automate the process and effectively make it just as easy to use as the official repository (funnily enough, such software is being distributed... on the AUR itself). Additionally, the Arch Linux wiki warns as strongly as it can that the AUR is not curated in the way the official repositories are, and that you should ideally audit both the packaging method and the software itself for anything you get from the AUR. This is what I'd consider one of Arch Linux's greatest strengths, as it allows otherwise very niche software to be available on the distribution as a simple package so long as one person has the motivation to package it and keep it up to date... and also its biggest downside because as you can probably guess, nothing prevents a bad actor from trying to distribute malware through the AUR. The community is ultimately vigilant enough that any attempt to outright distribute malware has been thwarted very quickly, but can it scale up if FOSS becomes sufficiently commonplace that getting something from the AUR became mainstream enough to make it an appealing attack vector? I don't know. And, of course, as a slightly lesser concern, "anyone can submit and maintain a package" also means that a given package might be malfunctioning because of lack of skill or commitment on the maintainer's part, and that too can cause issues if you don't expect it.

              Outside of packaging issues, software projects themselves could be taken over for malicious purposes. There was a notable instance of a very common file compression utility being compromised recently. The attack was sophisticated enough that it took a very lucky coincidence for someone to detect something off was going on in what turned out to be a malicious addition to the source code before it could have escalated to what could have been one of the worst security breaches in modern computing history. Free software is not a magic shield against malware, project leads and developers still need to follow thorough cybersecurity practices to ensure downstream users are kept safe, and vigilance on the part of everyone involved is required. I ultimately believe that overall it contributes to confidence that the source is trustworthy. The software repository of a given distribution isn't some monolithic entity with an unknown agenda, it's a community resource built by, and for, fellow users, developers, and maintainers of the distribution who are keeping each other in check (and since this is a common good, there are much fewer incentives for insiders to cause chaos or exploit their status for self-serving purposes). It's not perfect and, as always, being careful of what you run on your computer is still warranted, but I think is much more robust than having to rely on "source: trust me" from the creators of closed source software.

              ...But of course, one needs to be aware of the underlying structure of these projects to understand why it makes sense to trust this approach any more than good old Google-fu. Fun fact: did you know that there actually is a package manager built into Windows as of more recent versions, finally joining the ranks of all the Linux distributions having adopted it as standard practice since their inception? If not, that's unsurprising, Microsoft has made no effort whatsoever to communicate in any way about its existence, despite it arguably being a much more useful feature than any of the garbage they've been trying to ram down their users' throat. Frankly, I don't know why. Maybe it's because they deemed a terminal utility to not be marketable enough? There is a pretty good user-friendly front end for it (also combining other third party package managers, but that's a minor detail)... but it also happens to be third party so I guess drawing attention to it isn't something Microsoft cares about ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

              4 votes
              1. [5]
                DefinitelyNotAFae
                Link Parent
                Zero shade has been interpreted or taken! I do appreciate it very much, your last stretch there was something I looked at and felt exhausted even imagining engaging with it. It's probably not that...

                Zero shade has been interpreted or taken! I do appreciate it very much, your last stretch there was something I looked at and felt exhausted even imagining engaging with it. It's probably not that exhausting to try to manage all of it, but it's sort of like how I really just want to watch Generic Streaming Channel on my TV and not set up my own server and torrent everything and throw a Raspberry Pi somewhere in there. Or when people insisted on explaining to me how I could not see ads on YouTube on the Roku TV if I just six more steps to pirate content when I said repeatedly I didn't want that. I was annoyed at the ads I was seeing but not seeking a complex workaround.

                And I think that's the issue, there are always going to be things where I'm just a user. And that's fine, because again, I can knit, I'm learning to sew, and I'm learning to fix my own house things.

                I'm not good at the car stuff but I can also help people (and still maintain thats rhe most important software).

                I don't think I should also need to learn programming too, anymore than should need to grow my own food. It wouldn't be bad to learn, but my choosing to learn a different skill instead is part of balancing communities. There seems to be an arc to all technologies of them being new, and everyone having to learn how they work and how to make and repair them, because they're new to everyone, and then with industrialization society members lose touch with that over time - most people can't make clothes, fewer people cook, knowledge of cars decreases as you don't have to maintain them yourselves (and sometimes can't) the downward span of that arc is hitting programming hard right now.

                I just think all those things are valuable, and that even for folks who could be great programmers, if they'd rather spend their time cooking or sewing or fixing their lawn mower those are all valuable skills to learn and pass on.

                I think I was quite repetitive but probably it's just you reading the wall of text at this point so apologies!

                2 votes
                1. [4]
                  onceuponaban
                  Link Parent
                  I think it's ultimately a matter of adapting to a new process, and no matter how better the experience might be once adopted, the requirements to understand why the switch would be worth doing in...

                  I think it's ultimately a matter of adapting to a new process, and no matter how better the experience might be once adopted, the requirements to understand why the switch would be worth doing in the first place, and the initial work to set it up can be daunting to the point of being too much trouble... which then looks silly from the point of view of someone who already made that switch not understanding why the others can't plainly see just how much better this solution is, having lost sight of the time and effort that was necessary to achieve it in the first place.

                  Taking an example of something I recently set up that can very quickly devolve into a rabbit hole of things to learn: a blog. I could speak at length (but won't here because that's irrelevant) about reasons why I don't like relying on a third party to host it (although that is definitely a solution, and a much simpler one than what's coming). From the knowledge and setup I already have, the straightforward solution for me was to use the raspberry pi already sitting in my home to self-host a blogging platform. The whole thing was just a matter of looking over the options available in a list, picking the one I wanted, waiting for the installation to finish, copy-pasting a theme I liked from the project's website for my own instance, and I had a blog ready to use for writing articles using (mostly) the same commonly used Markdown syntax one might be used to from Discord to Reddit to of course Tildes itself.

                  ... You probably spotted a qualifier that is doing a lot of the heavy lifting here: From the knowledge and setup I already have. How might one replicate my setup from scratch, then? Oh, it's simple, really. [LOUD INCORRECT BUZZER]

                  • Understanding what makes up a website and how you might build your own
                  • Understanding the client/server relationship in the context of computing
                  • Understanding that there is no inherent divide between a computer running a server application and your garden variety personal computer
                  • Knowing where to get affordable hardware for a server (in the case of my personal choice, the raspberry pi, that also requires understanding what the arm architecture is, what is a software architecture in the first place, and what makes it different from the usual x64 architecture computer)
                  • Knowing what kind of hardware you might need on top of the computer itself (in my case, a couple hard drives and an external enclosure to hook them up to the raspberry pi. Before self hosting a website, that set up was originally meant for data storage.)
                  • Knowledge of using Linux, and specifically the terminal (would absolutely be required at some point to remotely administrate your server)
                  • In my case, knowing about the Yunohost project, which greatly simplifies the process of setting up a self hosted server (you can do it manually, but I personally went for Yunohost and the alternative would be even more involved)
                  • Although Yunohost's documentation guides you through the process, knowledge of installing an operating system, partitioning your storage, configuring a domain name, and setting up port redirection on your router (... adding "understanding what a router is, how to access its interface, and how to configure it accordingly" to the list)

                  And then, you get to enjoy the convenience of using Yunohost to seamlessly install various self hosted server applications you could use from anywhere... provided you look over your choices and find out what you need, then figure out how to configure each service to fit your needs. Having learned this either through looking it up out of curiosity or being taught in college, setting this up makes sense to me. To someone who never used their computer for anything more complicated than their workplace's software and as an email/document storage machine, chances are they straight up don't have the time to put their life on hold to learn about it from scratch. This was an extreme example (self hosting is probably the most convoluted solution even if I have my reasons to do it) but some shade of this will generally apply.

                  Using a package manager? Easy, a few clicks and your whole system is updated without you having to worry about any part of the underlying structure of software packaging or installing software yourself... assuming you're using a Linux distribution. And to most people, anything that has "switch to another OS" in the list of steps is a hard pass. If it wasn't, the desktop Linux adoption percentage would be more than a single digit. This number is growing, sure, but it's still very much a niche system as of now.

                  4 votes
                  1. [2]
                    DefinitelyNotAFae
                    Link Parent
                    And for me, for what my needs are, I need something repetitive to do with my hands and a hat for the winter, so I'll teach string to become fabric instead. 😉 You're preaching to the choir on why...

                    And for me, for what my needs are, I need something repetitive to do with my hands and a hat for the winter, so I'll teach string to become fabric instead. 😉

                    You're preaching to the choir on why I'm not particularly inclined towards picking up "projects" like that. They're not my area of expertise. And not a particular area of interest or enjoyment.

                    3 votes
                    1. onceuponaban
                      (edited )
                      Link Parent
                      Yeah, this is why when I advise people on the matter I stay away from pushing for complex DIY approaches and more radical changes that require a commitment to learn something new unless the person...

                      Yeah, this is why when I advise people on the matter I stay away from pushing for complex DIY approaches and more radical changes that require a commitment to learn something new unless the person is willing to go that route and/or simpler solutions are genuinely unfit for the purpose. When I suggest something like switching to Linux, while it is something I believe would work for a lot more people than they realize, it's still something to get used to even in the simplest case, and at least in the context of online discussion, it would be difficult for me to get a full picture of whether it's truly a net benefit for the specific person I'm talking to. Going for that should only considered if it is a truly worthwhile solution to a concrete problem for the user (and that's for them to decide, not me), not for the hell of it or as part of the secular equivalent of evangelizing for some sort of FOSS crusade against the evil megacorps.

                      And whenever I do think that a more complex solution to a problem is warranted, that also comes with committing to help implementing it. I'm the informal IT guru for most of my family, and the main purpose of that raspberry pi I mentioned earlier is to provide services for them (and myself) that they don't need to maintain themselves, greatly lowering the barrier to adopting them over the mainstream services. And if there's an issue, I'm there to help. Similarly, my grandmother (herself a very early adopter of the home computer and was pretty tech savvy until old age regretfully caught up) has no specific need for Linux over Windows, but in her old age she needs all the help she can when she needs to accomplish tasks on her computer and frankly I deem Windows to be a significant security threat to someone who isn't vigilant enough. So, with her approval, her computer is now running a Linux distribution, with the understanding that I'm on-call for any issues (since that was already the case when the computer was running Windows anyway). It's been working very well for her, and even led to fewer calls to solve issues.

                      A similar commitment to help with a given change in habit is not really feasible on my part past initial setup for random people over the internet, so I don't push the matter if whoever I'm giving advice to doesn't explicitly express a desire to make the switch after initially suggesting it. The problem, which I'm sure you've encountered, is when people also advocating for free software (and DIY computing in general) continue preaching the word of the Church of Stallman™ when it's obviously inappropriate and/or take lack of willingness to apply their proposed solution as a moral failing (which then shows up within free software spaces in the form of dumb infighting over who's more committed to the cause buuut I'm stopping that thought there before this becomes yet another rant inside an already very verbose post), or, more innocently but still annoying, assume a much greater level of knowledge than is warranted and get frustrated when hit with the real world in yet another instance of xkcd 2501 being relevant. I get where they're coming from, but that really doesn't help with reducing the perception of the FOSS movement as a bunch of elitist nerds out of touch with reality, which then frustrates me when I see it crop up over the Internet or in person. I'm sure vegans can relate, as someone pointed out in this topic.

                      I'd blame social media reducing the overall level of trust in people starting discussions in good faith, but frankly that mess has been going on since the days of Usenet and mailing lists as a primary platform on the Internet, and I wasn't even old enough to use a computer back then so I suspect the root of that issue is more sociological.

                      3 votes
                  2. [2]
                    Comment deleted by author
                    Link Parent
                    1. onceuponaban
                      Link Parent
                      I do not. I'm only relying on port redirection going to the server, no password login through SSH (SSH key only), yunohost's built-in implementation of fail2ban (looking over some of the jail logs...

                      I do not. I'm only relying on port redirection going to the server, no password login through SSH (SSH key only), yunohost's built-in implementation of fail2ban (looking over some of the jail logs has been entertaining), and firewalls on every other individual machine on the network. I'm generally operating under the assumption that if my server is compromised, the whole network is screwed anyway since all traffic is routed to it through pi-hole... or rather it will soon, haven't implemented it just yet. This might be unwise on my part and further securing access through a VLAN is definitely safer, but I personally think I'm sufficiently covered. This is also mostly a matter of convenience to not complicate my setup and run into more issues, but you know what they say about trading security for convenience. YMMV.

                      2 votes
    4. [2]
      Minori
      Link Parent
      I don't think every post with a click bait title needs to be removed. If it generates good discussion, it's still in keeping with Tildes' experience imo.

      I don't think every post with a click bait title needs to be removed. If it generates good discussion, it's still in keeping with Tildes' experience imo.

      7 votes
      1. DefinitelyNotAFae
        Link Parent
        The title can absolutely be changed though if someone has a better idea, even quotes and some context And it's already done

        The title can absolutely be changed though if someone has a better idea, even quotes and some context

        And it's already done

        9 votes
    5. [3]
      Schwoop
      Link Parent
      Particularly if the post itself is only a promotion for OP's (I assume) content elsewhere.

      clickbait) titles like this being allowed here

      Particularly if the post itself is only a promotion for OP's (I assume) content elsewhere.

      1. [2]
        Fal
        Link Parent
        There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the linked post is OP's own content

        There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the linked post is OP's own content

        11 votes
        1. Schwoop
          Link Parent
          Fair point, I shouldn't have put it in that way. But it seems that I've seen some self promotion repeatedly here in the last weeks.

          Fair point, I shouldn't have put it in that way.

          But it seems that I've seen some self promotion repeatedly here in the last weeks.

          1 vote