X rival Bluesky gains 1.25 million users following U.S. election
X rival Bluesky gains 1.25 million users following U.S. election
Bluesky has gained over 1.25 million new users in the past week, indicating some social media users are changing their habits following the U.S. election.
Yesterday I read on mastodon that leaving Twitter to go to Bluesky is like quitting smoking to start vaping. Changing a centralized place that lives off your data for another one. Right now Bluesky does not have hate speech like Twitter just because it does not suit the current accounts of its shareholders
Switching to vaping is less bad, and for me, it lead to me quitting all together. So to me, this is still a small win, and I like to celebrate small wins these days.
I would say quitting twitter to join bluesky is more like quitting menthols to smoke regular cigarettes, and switching to a decentralized platform would be more analogous to a switch to vaping. Quitting social media entirely would equate better to 'quitting smoking' in my mind, as i dont think any platform is mentally healthful (yes i am fully aware of the hypocrisy of posting this comment as a lemmy user).
I think we just need to adopt the 2000s mindset again of dropping a platform when it gets shit. No one gave a fuck about the loss of Digg and Myspace.
I don’t know if hate speech will be able to flourish on Bluesky like on twitter simply because of the moderation tools.
There’s already a giant blocklist of maga idiots who have tried to move over, and if you follow that list you’ll never see their posts. And the unwritten rule of the place is to block anyone who is trying to start stuff or that you simply don’t like. On twitter that felt taboo for some reason, but on Bluesky that’s normal - as it should be, really.
I left Twitter years ago, but I think you could also block whoever you want, whether people do it more or less is independent of the site, the moderation tools are the same. 3
What's more, I am 100% sure that if in a few years Bluesky considers it economically beneficial for its shareholders that these tools "have occasional failures" this will happen without a doubt. This is something that if happens in Mastodon, changing the node you are done
How is mastodon not just a bunch of centralized platforms?
Sure the servers communicate with each other but the content is still just on one of them. Goes the server, so goes the content.
Or am I mistaking?
If it is like I say I feel it is more trading Hitler in for, potentially, a bunch of smaller Hitlers.
IIRC the content is on multiple. If there's a single user on lemmy.world subscribing to content from somewhere.else's foo community, then foo will be synced to lemmy.world and if somewhere.else is taken down it will remain on lemmy.world.
But someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, it isn't just about servers going offline. If a single server does something bad, you can just switch to a different one and enjoy the same content you've been seeing.
Well, I am not a systems engineer to answer your question, in any case smaller Hitlers equals Hitlers with less power. Dividing power is not the definitive solution to authoritarianism, but it usually helps a lot, especially if the agents are also competitive. "If you are too Hitler, I'll go to this other server that is a little less so" is a valid incentive to avoid the Hitlerization of the admins.
I don't think I've ever used the name Hitler so much.
a bunch of centralized platforms?
This is what decentralized means. If your home instance goes to shit, you can just move your account to another one.
https://atproto.com/guides/self-hosting it’s not so bad; they’re a lot more open than people giving them credit for. it’s just not as federated - yet
It has a single owner who makes the decisions and makes profitable the contributions of the users. It is a social media model that has been over for me for some time now, if they are open the better for them, I am not going to join anyway.
Twitter started dying when they closed the API
Bluesky’s is perfectly operational
Things never change, companies never break promises, shareholders never hold power over decision, people can not be bought
Those would all have to be true in order for anyone to have a reason to put trust into Bluesky.
Ok, if for you the API is the most important thing, go ahead, I'm worried about more companies doing "things" with my data, everyone has their priorities.
P.S. Unlike in BlueSky in Mastodon you can be 100% sure that the API will never be closed, in Bluesky it will depend on variable business interests
I was just reading up on bluesky yesterday and you can self host and also have a bridge to link with the fediverse so maybe there is some hope to communicate
The bridges are singular points of failure. If the bridge you use goes down you lose all your audience that was on that bridge. It’s better than nothing however. I will consider normies using threads and Bluesky a win as much as I can but it’d be so more ideal if we just all were on open and truly federated protocols instead of relying on half measures
Yeah I've been trying to convince an acquaintance to use mastodon instead of Twitter for a while then yesterday he mentioned he created a bluesky account and I had to look it up, not great but better I guess
It's a start. At least ordinary people are leaving Twitter for another site in some capacity.
We will be here when that goes to shit as well.
Well, there goes the Fediverse.
Hardly. The Fediverse spans multiple apps and services, and it existed before Elon bought Twitter and it will continue existing regardless of what the billionaires do, because it's not run by just one person.
The whole point is decentralization, not growth, so unless the billionaires can take out every server hosting an instance, the Fediverse isn't going anywhere.
This.
Back in the day this is how the internet worked. Every forum host was just some guy or girl hosting a platform so they coukd build a community with the people and hobbies they love.
We need to go back closer to that world. The fediverse bridges the gap between the centralized experience, and decentralized management.
Optimistically, it's the best of both worlds.
I don't think it's the worst outcome or the Fediverse needing to be written off because of this. At least for now BridgyFed is a thing, and it's not like we have to capture every refugee, Mastodon has thriving and tight-knit communities.
Most Mastodon groups are about Mastodon, Fediverse and the drama accompanying both.
The fediverse is considered 'over' when parasitic leeches like Musk and Spez come knocking on Lemmy's and BlueSky's doors like "we want growth...please sell to us".