Pluralistic: Bluesky and enshittification (02 Nov 2024) Cory Doctorow
Pluralistic: Bluesky and enshittification (02 Nov 2024) Cory Doctorow
It's not outside capital that leads to enshittification, it's leverage that enshittifies a service.
A VC that understands that they can force you to wreck your users' lives is always in danger of doing so. A VC who understands that doing this will make your service into an empty – and thus worthless – server is far less likely to do so (and if they do, at least your users can escape).
Incredibly clear article pointing out that no individuals will ever be able to resist enshittifaction pressures indefinitely.
The only way to prevent people with power from emiserating others is to structurally remove any benefit to doing so.
so, socialism?
Last 16 years of my life have taught me (though I had read that stated before, just without such experimental confirmation) that even such obvious mechanisms humans don't understand.
I mean, if you show the world as consisting of negotiating groups exchanging value in different dimensions, it's pretty clear.
Power corrupts. No news there.
The concerns are true but if people leave Twitter for Bluesky it's still an improvement because Elon uses the algorithm to boost far-right content and he has your data.
I mean, what if “we” just stop using various social media platforms all together? I remember the days when various people never really shared their opinions and beliefs about most topics to the general public. Maybe we should get back to face to face conversations about life topics.
It's unlikely it'll go back in the bottle, and that style of social media is capable of facilitating positive social change (Arab spring as one example) that may not have been possible without it.
The single example of a possible positive outcome? I remember when this happened, they made a big deal about it, however it may not have had that much of a positive effect. You know the void left to be filled with someone as bad or worse. https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/27/middleeast/egypt-how-we-got-here/index.html
Agreed, I left twitter almost a year ago and haven't felt the need to sign up for any of its alternatives, federated or not. I just haven't felt like my life is missing anything by not using these platforms.
Humans are social creatures by nature. The goal should be to improve our social interactions instead of letting others exploit them for profit
You can’t put that tube back in the tube of toothpaste
what days were those? the stone age? because people have been talking remotely for thousands of years.
Day 2984783 of mentally substituting "enshittification" with "rot"
Enshittification is specifically how something inevitably gets worse and more anti-user due to pressures from capitalism/shareholders/profit incentive.
Rot, at least in my mind, is not that specific. It could mean the codebase is not well maintained and slowly failing, as an example.
What is actually missing from AT Proto to be usable in the way Doctorow describes? He writes:
Bluesky lacks the one federated feature that is absolutely necessary for me to trust it: the ability to leave Bluesky and go to another host and continue to talk to the people I've entered into community with there. While there are many independently maintained servers that provide services to Bluesky and its users, there is only one Bluesky server. A federation of multiple servers, each a peer to the other, has been on Bluesky's roadmap for as long as I've been following it, but they haven't (yet) delivered it.
But according to the source code repo, federation features are fully available, including independent servers. There's even a guide for setting up an independent server: https://atproto.com/guides/self-hosting
Edit: looks like I'm probably not missing anything, and the protocol is fully capable of what Doctorow wants, it just doesn't have any other large instances yet: https://social.coop/@bnewbold/113420983888441504
Edit 2: I found a post that seems much more honest and informative about the actual limitations of AT Proto. In particular:
Relays cannot talk to Relays. If Bluesky Social, PBC decided to show ads (or do something else you don’t like), it would be very hard for you to switch to a different Relay and still be able to interact with all the other folks who stayed at the Bluesky Social, PBC Relay.
Edit 3: the "more honest" post above actually appears to be misleading as well: https://bsky.app/profile/shreyanjain.net/post/3lbndy6pknc2k
I’ve read over the documentation a few times and maybe I’ve missed it somewhere else but I’m not aware of any option to host a relay yet. As far as I know only self hosting PDS’s are an option now (which only handle your own data and authentication but still relies on a relay to serve you content from the rest of the network) and app views (which are the front ends that sort and show content)
So in a sense bluesky is distributed and portable within the ATProto network, but still centralized until other entities can host relays and interopt (or opt out of interoperability) within the network.
Here's a post on how to set up a relay: https://whtwnd.com/bnewbold.net/entries/Notes on Running a Full-Network atproto Relay (July 2024)
How many relays are there?
...how is it Bluesky's responsibility to set up an independent server? If they're the ones that set up the server, how can it be independent?
Doctorow's complaint only makes sense as a critique of Bluesky itself if he's talking about the technical aspects of AT Proto. If what he really means is just "nobody has bothered to actually deploy and maintain a fully separate relay instance", that's not a problem with Bluesky, it's an ecosystem issue that he could help by encouraging people to do that work, rather than discouraging them from learning about the platform.
I honestly don't have much stake in this fight, I'm just frustrated that, as far as I can tell, Doctorow, an intelligent person with a nontrivial following, appears to be spreading misinformation about what is or isn't possible with Bluesky.
I totally get where Cory is coming from on this. He's been around long enough to have actually seen these things happen, from a perspective that's effectively unique. I believe him when he talks about this stuff. I get his point of not putting effort into building up a platform that can hold him and his audience hostage.
but here's the good part.
People bailing on Twitter to join Bluesky is reasonably easy (there are tools available to find your friends on the new system). If it's easy to bail on Twitter to join Bluesky, it will be similarly easy to bail on Bluesky to join Mastodon, if/when that becomes necessary.
Yes, because it's so easy to get people to switch to a different service!
I tried to get my friends to move from Facebook to Diaspora. How many of them did? ZERO. Not even the ones who like to talk about how much they hate Facebook.
Look what it took to peel off users from Twitter! The last straw had to be Elon getting a dictator elected. And even then, it's only a fraction of users.
There's a quote from Eric S. Raymond about the issue of getting people to switch to something better (in this case the OS Plan 9) if there's already something that's fulfilling the need just enough that it becomes difficult to get anyone to move.
it looks like Plan 9 failed simply because it fell short of being a compelling enough improvement on Unix to displace its ancestor. Compared to Plan 9, Unix creaks and clanks and has obvious rust spots, but it gets the job done well enough to hold its position. There is a lesson here for ambitious system architects: the most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough.
The fear now is that people will just switch to Bluesky until it becomes like Twitter, and it's not a guarantee that Mastodon will be next in line. It could be another closed service that's primed to take its place, and thus, the cycle continues.
Except it's been 2 years and most people haven't yet migrated away from Twitter to anything.
That's true from our perspective, but not from someone like Cory's.
The trap he writes about being stuck on these platforms is because he doesn't just have friends and people he follows on these platforms — he has an audience. And closing his Twitter or Facebook or whatever would mean leaving large audiences that he has built up behind.
Cory stays on those platforms as his own version of the (justifiable, but regretful) compromise he writes about companies making. Better to stay on those shitty platforms and continue to reach people than abandon both the shitty platforms and his audiences there.
That's why he doesn't want to put effort into building an audience somewhere that might force him into the same compromise again.
Even if you aren't Cory, you have to face leaving behind the people who won't switch (which will be most of them).
Cool. Look at that. It's the daily Bluesky post. Is it my turn tomorrow?
All hail NOSTR protocol 🫡
Sticking your neck out always has the risk of having your head lopped off. But if you never stick it out there you don't see the light
Hey I am just pointing the way
If you want people other than nerds in niche communities to care about this, you're going to have to start calling it something else.
Trump is president elect of the USA and you think the problem to this issue's path to visibility is political correctness?
Call it fuckification if it gets clicks and attention, this is the USA. They vote for trash, speak their language.
Has nothing to do with it being PC or not, it has to do with the term 'enshittification' not explaining jack shit.
I will never again devote my energies to building up an audience on a platform whose management can sever my relationship to that audience at will
I don't know who this person is, but that seems a bit pompous.
Your probably should if your interested in digital rights. Pretty good author too.
As always, there is a relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/345/
He is. And his care for the audience translates to posting 10+ post threads to mastodon, a microblogging platform, because he cares so much. Instead of, dare i say, posting one toot with a link to his blog.
It's pretty much the same thing as using services that you can't self-host and fork. I won't spend time on any technology that I'm locked into using their app or a login. Is that pompous? I've used various services and technology that are proprietary, and invariably it's bit me in the ass because they have a captive audience.
I will never use a smarthome device that has to have a cloud account or would be bricked without an internet connection, because eventually it will be a brick because the profit incentive says brick it and get the marks to buy another one. That's the point of that comment.
To clarify, the pompous part relates to "devote my energies to building up an audience". But maybe it's because I devote my energies to shitposting instead. On the other points I can get where you're coming from.
what do you mean?
He's a c-list celebrity and genre author. I generally agree with what he says and enjoy his writing, but I'd be surprised if any of his usual audience joined a platform specifically because of him.
Edit: I am surprised that some of his usual audience joined a platform specifically because of him.
Me.
I followed him from Twitter to Mastodon, even though he didn't exactly endorse Mastodon. If he were to endorse a platform I wouldn't think twice about joining.
I know people who have, so I would disagree.
I am surprised that some of his usual audience joined a platform specifically because of him.
You're surprised that a privacy and security advocate and essayist with a large online following would have people who would take his advice on which social media platform is best for security and privacy?
+1
He could have avoided that statement entirely.