You must log in or # to comment.
So why does everyone keep referring to Bluesky as decentralized or even comparable to the fediverse
Bluesky is the newest iteration of privately owned and controlled social media
Because, despite being wildly impractical, it’s technically built on tech that COULD be decentralized. Only recent a new host launched called Black sky. So it is no longer just one host. But it’s been one host for so long it almost doesn’t matter because so few people will switch.
Technically, yes, if you squint; but, practically, no. It was designed with a prioritization of passing the information/data around to avoid any lack of missing anything (so you get a closer experience to the connectedness of Twitter than Mastodon) which means every instance hosts, basically, the entire world. Naturally, there’s only going to be a few entities that can store and afford to store the entirety of the data of the network. There’s no such thing as a small instance, in their protocol.
Because silicon valley thinks it can define reality however it wants and keep telling us not to believe our lying eyes.
Weirdly this seems to work better on techy people who don’t like thinking about politics but understand the technical details of this extremely well than it does on normie progressives because progressives just see the obvious predatory reality and don’t get distracted in minutiae connected to very obviously empty promises.
The tech press does not ever talk to progressives though…
Does it? None of my normie progressive friends are on the fediverse. The ones that tried it didn’t like it.
The tech press is talking to your normie friends?
No I’m saying the logic and propaganda of corporate social media seems to work on them, despite it being in obvious contrast to their ideals.
I’m with you. To my knowledge all my irl woke friends ride only mainstream social media.
I had a local anarchist reach out to me on my ancient FB Messenger of all things.
I get that it’s not the most important part if you’re doing prefiguration, but as far as I can tell most people just want to be where most people are, even if it is supporting actually vile corporations.
Unfortunately not understanding or being sufficiently motivated by the threat of corporate social media is still prevalent among a good amount of lefties I know, but I find even when they are uninterested in leaving corporate social media they can at least understand the logic behind it in a way a lot of techy type people start to just get combatitive when you try to explain.
Most often when I have a conversation about this with someone who is very technically well versed with computers and the types of systems that are relevant to federated social media their response is to answer every one of my broader ethical questions by changing the topic to a conversation about technical details and they either utterly miss the point or outright refuse to have a discussion about it because they think I am being too cynical.
Ultimately these people only have one real argument which is to just repeat the mantra “stop being so negative, lets just wait and see before we jump to conclusions” endlessly about the same cycle of bullshit repeating over and over again.
calling people normies tends to do that
this seems to work better on techy people who don’t like thinking about politics but understand the technical details
Not weird at all; this was the case with cryptocurrency too. Otherwise qualified and intelligent people would invest in centralized scam coins because they had no understanding of economics, just tech.
It’s sad but cool that it works the same way with social capital.
Intelligence and expertise is worth pursuing for the benefit that comes from learning for the sake of learning, but it is true that there is a danger to knowing more and more about a very narrow subject in that it becomes more and more seductive to believe that the thing you are an expert in is a key to understanding everything else and that this gives you a righteous vantage to look down upon the genius of others and judge from afar.
Some of the smartest people there has ever been or likely will ever be throughout history have time and time again completely undermined their potential by falling prey to this delusional drug of a belief.
So why does everyone keep referring to Bluesky as decentralized or even comparable to the fediverse
They call it marketing, I call it propaganda.
“It’s the same picture.”
Always has been. The only difference is what they’re selling.
I feel like this speaks to an unchallenged myth in our society. That corporate organizations and government organizations are somehow completely categorically different from one another such that they exist in totally separate spheres of reality. But they’re both political groups of people, exercising power over the peasants. It’s not as different as people think. And they often have similar goals and use similar strategies, like propaganda, to achieve them.
Because it is decentalised, and beats the fediverse in many aspects.
There are a lot of cool features from at protocol that activity pub should steal. The way users can pick their algorithm is game changing
deleted by creator
