I think those of us that treat social media services this way are a minority in the grand picture. If BlueSky continues to be effective, network effect will pull in a steady stream of users, including ones that may have balked before.
It is poising itself to be a 1:1 drop-in replacement for Twitter. Federated services like Mastodon aren’t that (and aren’t trying to be).
I wholly believe that the majority of Twitter users have no interest in federated platforms as alternatives. By comparison, platforms like Mastodon feel vaguely like Twitter but more fractured and isolated. Everyone was on Twitter. Comparatively no one is on Mastodon. Discovery is awful and micromanaging instances and subscriptions is tedious busywork. “Why can’t it just be all in one convenient place, like on Twitter? This is so stupid and complicated,” I expect most would complain.
Federated platforms are loved by us because we value the fine control and we like putting in effort to curate our feeds. The complexity is the appeal. But I think it’s negative appeal to the type of person who has gotten accustomed to an algorithm doing all of that for them, and I think that’s most people. You can use federated platforms out of the box and they’ll “just work” without all the tinkering, but it will be very bland and vapid. It only becomes great when you put in work to make it great for yourself.
The thing BlueSky seems to be promising is that big, monolithic platform that Twitter was and most people want. And I think they’re the only notable player in that game, so they’ll completely corner that market. As long as they don’t trip over any footguns (and I don’t believe making the beta invite-only is one of them), I believe they’re going to succeed greatly.
At this stage that’s kind of the point. It’s an intentional demand-curbing measure. The number of people trying to switch to BlueSky outstrips hosting infrastructure. They’re scaling up slowly and carefully.
I presume once it’s out of open beta and they have the infra they need to launch properly, it will stop being invite ony.
Why do you have to “announce” your capabilities to beings you designed? Why do you have to onboard them to your “program” at all? If you truly are omnipotent, simply make beings that already know, and are already with the program. Assuming that is indeed what you want, why would you do anything else?
Are you throwing in extra steps for your own amusement? Just as a prank? Why? You’re omniscient. You already know how it ends. What’s amusing about it?
You are either toying with beings you created to be non-accepting and deliberately presenting conditions that won’t convince them, or you’re lacking one or both of omnipotence or omniscience.
An argument straight from the edgy teen atheist textbook, sure, but nonetheless one I have yet to see a compelling rebuttal for.
Idk, crusading against common myths is something that’s pretty hot these days. Stuff like:
Christopher Columbus didn’t actually discover America, and he was actually kind of an asshat
Bell didn’t invent the telephone, he was simply the first to patent and subsequently litigate
"Frankenstein" is the name of the scientist, not the monster
Many modern tropes about Christian Hell stem from a 17th century political satire novel
Crusading for truth in easily verifiable matters feels very on-brand for the kind of people who use Lemmy. In that light, reclaiming a negative term that’s only negative because of a false premise to describe ourselves doesn’t sound so bad. At worst, we become a little insufferable as we have to introduce the term with a “well, ackshually”, which a lot of us would probably do anyway.
But it's all about convenience (teacup.social)
Business is going well (sh.itjust.works)
creator trolly (aussie.zone)
As it should be in the Fediverse (lemmy.world)