Seriously i have zero idea what is going on with bluesky. I never used it. Why are people saying it’s centralised? I also heard that a lot of people are joining it.

  • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    22 days ago

    I mean, as long as Twitter goes down, who exactly gets to do the killing blow among all the individual blows doesn’t truly matter now, does it?

    • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      58
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      22 days ago

      Depends on your perspective. Would it be fine for Meta Threads to replace it? Threads supports ActivityPub, so in some ways it likely interacts better with the fediverse.

      If we agree that Threads isn’t a suitable replacement, then clearly there’s some criteria a replacement should meet. A lot of the things that make Threads unpalatable are also true of Bluesky, particularly if your concern relates to the platform being under the control of a corporation.

      On the other hand, from the perspective of “Twitter 2.0 is now a toxic, alt-right cesspool where productive conversations can’t be had,” then both Threads and Bluesky are huge improvements.

      • Hemingways_Shotgun@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        21 days ago

        Supporting ActivityPub doesn’t excuse being owned and operated by META.

        Will Bsky eventually shit itself like Twitter did? Sure, maybe. That seems to be the normal path nowadays. And when it does, I’ve still got my Masto account that I try to keep active as well. But at the very least, Bsky is a different company. I can have a bsky account without being dragged into an entire META ecosystem designed to put their chosen content in front of my eyes.

        Even at it’s worst, the fact that Bsky is it’s own thing and not owned by a mega corporation puts it automatically about Threads, regardless of ActivityPub.

      • monk@lemmy.unboiled.info
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 days ago

        If it needs a server to talk to others, that’s already bad. If it needs a server, but it can be my server, it’s palatable. That’s all the criteria you need.

    • tomi000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 days ago

      Xitter wont die, it will just become even more of a far-right bubble for fake news and manipulation without resistance, just like Elon wants it to be.

    • comfy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      20 days ago

      It absolutely does. What happened to twitter could happen to a successor. The successor matters.

      • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        20 days ago

        Sure, but as you cannot know the future, it’s a bit tricky to pick a successor you want to support based on that, instead of absolutely right-now-essential things such as “Where people actually are”.

        It’s also important to keep in mind how long Twitter’s run was: It was originally founded 18 years ago. I’d be okay if every 10-15 years I have to get a new Twitter, tbh. I buy a new phone every 4-5 years, a new car every 15-20, I’m alright. It’s cheap to go onto a new Twitter, I’m far less resistant to change with that.

        That is to say: Sure, maaaybe (again, can’t truly know) Mastodon is superior on a technical level. But not only is that absolutely not how social media operates, and second it really doesn’t matter if a sucessor also goes down in 10+ years. People won’t be able to care any less if a successor lasts that long, and considering how quickly Mastodon has turned into a semi-ghost-town once Bluesky got big, I kinda know what I’d put my money onto.

        Of course all of this ignores a central problem with the entire category of services: They don’t conduct conversations well, even stuff like Misskey or Mastodon.