Skip Navigation
22 comments

  • Not that this is all "Bluesky bad, Fediverse good" as a lot of the Fediverse may not be ready for primetime and that's OK, at least for us early adopters who are not overly concerned with the services being rough around the edges and/or lacking in key features.

    An interesting reply to the thread by Dave Troy gives a more nuanced overview:

    I still see Bluesky as a useful short-term Twitter alternative (Meta and Threads are already doing all the things that Bluesky is likely do in the future, it's a lot easier to get up and going on Bluesky than Mastodon, and Blacksky is the only thing I know of in the decentralized world that's a good path for Black Twitter. Still, even without all the important points you make, and the "we don't have to ban Alex Jones" factor , they're a venture-funded startup, so once they need to monetize they're very likely to turn to an exploitative business model. So while it's situationally useful, it's not a promising long-term base.

    And later they say:

    Right now, Bluesky is a much better place for Twitter-like progressive organizing and activism than anything else in the fediverse. And it's still contested ground; Jay and the other founders still have the balance of power (not the VC), and it's not yet clear that they'll fully side with fascists -- and even if they do, the broader ecosystem may well split to at least some extent, and there will be a "free ATmossphere" as well as the "free fediverse" that @ophiocephalic and others (includingn me!) talk about. So building a presence there is a reasonable thing to do,.

    Still also there's a lot more to organizing on social networks than Twitter alternatives, and that' plays to the fediverse's strengths. So it's all the more critical to address the fediverse's weaknesses so that there's another organizing and activism platform, both to support the battle on Bluesky and as an alternative power base.

22 comments