It’s brief, around 25:15
https://youtube.com/watch?v=nf7XHR3EVHo
If you’ve been sitting on making a post about your favorite instance, this could be a good opportunity to do so.
Going by our registration applications, a lot of people are learning about the fediverse for the first time and they’re excited about the idea. I’ve really enjoyed reading through them :)
i’m on a finnish instance but i’m on ihio
also as far as my cred i am considered epic by some weird guys.
Good boi
CIA. A rehash of the crypto ag strategy
What do you mean?
Not a big surprise it’s only the alternatives to twitter and instagram.
Here’s the same video on PeerTube
We should have a bot link federated alts for links… 🤔
There is a Firefox extension that does automatically (although it seems to be a bit unreliable). Maybe someone can extract that part into a library and make a not with it.
That works for desktop but not the voyager app 🫤
You don’t just trade 1 powerful ceo for another when you get the chance to leave. Ridiculous.
Bluesky will be the next Twitter. Just give it some time
mastodon is already the next twitter, bluesky is just a direct copy of it with nothing keeping it from going the same way. mastodon is open source (can’t be corpoed), federated (can talk to other platforms/instances so being on a small one doesn’t hurt anything), and most importantly, uses a protocol that doesn’t make self-hosting impossible due to storage requirements.
And is comprised entirely of no one I care to follow, awesome.
https://www.piratewires.com/p/interview-with-jack-dorsey-mike-solana
thats how its creator feels too.
And here’s how and why it will be enshitified:
RemindMe! 10 years
I signed up today. I never liked Twitter but I will give it a try. Steam (PC gaming platform) is a member so that’s a plus for me.
Why bluesky instead of mastodon? It’s like saying lemmy.world is going to replace reddit instead of the Lemmy platform.
Are you just commenting how the people who use something like twitter are eager to be herded like sheep into the next walled garden?
Are you part of the bluesky viral marketing campaign to make it artificially seem like it’s “already won”?
Why bluesky instead of mastodon?
Because there is only so much oxygen in the room, and corporate ventures like Bluesky seem to come into really exciting DIY community spaces that are creating amazing things and pull the oxygen out of the room while never quite delivering on what they are promising… or seeming to promise… and in the mean time the projects that originally created the innovative energy in the space are lost in the noise.
I mean… see basically the entire early history of the commercialization of personal computers for endless repetitions of this pattern.
Remember we are not the customers of corporate social media companies, we are the raw husks they extract value from through surveillance capitalism and ads/paid content.
When I said bluesky will be the next Twitter did I said Twitter is a good place. Twitter is now bullshit.
There is another interpretation. Calm down.
Err… what?
Care to explain what that ‘other interpretation’ is?
You are taking “replace Twitter” as an appellation, when in reality it was intended as a condemnation.
I’m wondering this too People are hyped about bluesky but it is the same corpo bullshit that Twitter is. I mean it is literally by the same dude. Why fold?,
Bizarre that you and that other guy thought “will become the next Twitter” was some sort of praise. It’s not.
I think it’s more bizarre that you think “same corpo bullshit that Twitter is” is some kind of praise.
If you don’t agree with the person above you, maybe don’t start your comment with
I’m wondering this too.
Accusing people of being shills for commenting that bluesky is going to become (shitty) like twitter is out of pocket.
Didnt Dorsey already walk from it and gave the reason that it is headed the same way twitter is. Bluesky is being pushed by capitalists because it is a for profit company just like twitter and facebook.
Exactly! All a person has to do is to look around - the right buys up all popular media platforms and converts them to propaganda outlets.
Really hoping legislators in Sweden don’t force Signal to pull its services from the country. 🫣
Signal has been questionable for years. The way it’s been pushed hardly, and how Moxie is emeritus, while much more questionable people are in control, doesn’t fill one with confidence, and does ring some alarm bells. The relative proximity to some in the US establishment should be enough to do that. And the way some have been designating anyone who questions Signal as “Russian Propaganda” and immediately deflecting about how Telegram is bad, is even more curious.
Frankly, I would trust something like Wire more than Signal. And there are other options too.
Ideally, something with good security/privacy and is fully P2P would become popular. But those apps/networks never make it mainstream, which is unfortunate.
There is a lot in here that I don’t understand.
- What’s wrong with Moxie? You mean it’s weird he’s an emeritus and not part of the board?
- What’s “much more questionable” about the other people? From the descriptions on that page they all seem like standup people.
- Could you explain the “relative proximity to some in the US establishment” bit? That was too vague for me to grasp.
- “some have been designating anyone who questions Signal as ‘Russian Propaganda’ and immediately deflecting about how Telegram is bad, is even more curious.” — Who has done this, you mean? And why exactly is it “curious”?
Honestly, there was nothing at all in there that I understood, due to how vague it all was. I would appreciate it if you or someone could fill me in here, because it’s important to know who’s driving this thing, and if the platform can be trusted. I just want to not go by some vague rumors before I make up my mind.
louder for the people in the back.
What legislation would do that? Would they want access to your messages or something?
They want to make crime fighting more accessible to the police… 💀
I feel like the DNC are being pushed into a blindspot for the general public.
All Bernie has done is go around to speak at different events, and he is far from the only politician to do so.
It’s what the DNC wants. They want to only be seen as the “lesser evil” to people like trump.
They genuinely have no interest in helping the working class, because they’re not a part of it.
Socialized healthcare, removing money from politics, and taxing the rich is not “the lesser evil” it’s fucking good. It’s blatantly a force of great good that we keep snubbing and blaming for no reason at all.
What we should be doing is giving them majorities and supermajorities and praising them for the great work they do.
They don’t care about doing any of that, though. They only make promises to get elected and reneg on everything once in office.
Did any of that happen while Biden was in office? Didn’t think so. It’s because he’s a stooge propped up by the ruling class to make people like you think he has your interests at hand. He doesn’t. Establishment democrats do not want to raise taxes on the wealthy. That’s a progressive agenda.
Those are literally laws they have written, voted on, and in some cases actually passed before.
When?
In 1995 until 2002 they attempted to ban large campaign contributions and SUCCEEDED until it was struck down in 2010 by a conservative split SCOTUS decision 5-4 in Citizens United
In 2013 they used the caucusing IND supermajority to vote for public option healthcare coverage and it lost by 1 vote (the IND betrayed us) so instead we got Medicaid Expansion which combined with Childrens Health Insurance Program payed for the medical costs of 79 Million Americans currently.
The previous Tax Plan was written and passed by the GOP after 2016 elections, and it expires THIS YEAR meaning the GOP get to write the next tax plan, too. Can you guess what Kamala Harris’ tax plan was? It was to lower taxes for earners below 400k, tax unrealized gains for the rich, raise taxes for the wealthy in general.
If democrats really wanted to reduce the disparity in wealth, why would they avoid nominating Bernie twice?
It was to lower taxes for earners below 400k, tax unrealized gains for the extremely rich, raise taxes for the wealthy in general.
I’ve seen this one before! The only part that “gets through” are the tax cuts for those making >$100k per year!
This is why establishment democrats don’t want people like Bernie. They’re part of the problem and want to keep profiting off of it.
I say give it three years and blue sky will just be a neolib twitter
My recent experience bluesky social was right wing. I got marked as spam immediately for commenting left wing, polite normal stuff, no arguments or anything controversial. My appeals were ignored for weeks so I left.
Interesting info, thank you. It isn’t FOSS so I don’t plan on actively using it but I try to keep my finger on what’s up. I don’t miss Reddit and wish I didn’t need a FB for my job. My account is almost a ghost though and I don’t have it on my phone. I’m sure they still have way too much data on me though.
Anybody who supports the definition of liberalism is an ally, imo.
Yeah, infighting in the resistance is a waste of time.
💙
Can anyone explain Bluesky vs Mastodon as Twitter alternatives, asking as someone who never really used Twitter much anyway?
There’s a viral marketing campaign going on right now to herd the twitter sheep to the next rich-person’s platform. That’s why we keep seeing useful idiots say “bluesky” instead of “Mastodon.”
Bluesky is corporate, Mastodon is closer to Lemmy in ownership.
On the surface, both of them look very similar in format. They also both advertise themselves as decentralized and different from traditional social media, arguing that they won’t face the same problems old social media did.
Mastodon uses ActivityPub, which is the widely used standard that most other fediverse platforms use. Mastodon is properly decentralized, where all the servers can interact and operate independently.
BlueSky made their own protocol that they control, citing that ActivityPub wasn’t enough for what they wanted to do, and in some ways that’s true. However with their structure, a central relay is needed in order for different instances to interact and so people argue that it isn’t truly decentralized. Right now BlueSky is either the only instance, or basically the only instance.
BlueSky is also a VC backed company while Mastodon is now under a nonprofit. BlueSky has its roots in crypto tech. There is more technical discussion on if it’s even possible to have a decentralized BlueSky and if it’s all just talk while they gather users.
My personal opinion is that I really hope bluesky does what they’re promising, but I’m not expecting them to be any different than Twitter once they get a critical mass of users and the investors demand profits / infinite growth.
BlueSky made their own protocol that they control, citing that ActivityPub wasn’t enough for what they wanted to do
Sounds like bullshit for useful idiots that don’t know what they’re talking about.
For me the advantage of Bluesky is that I can own my identity. I can reserve myusername@mydomain.tld and use that, without having to run my own instance.
With Mastodon I’d have to put up a full-ass server instance and worry about federation etc just to have my “own” identity instead of myusername@mastodon.social or something
Bluesky is what happens when someone with a corporate mindset wants to make something new and good. Mastodon happens when hobbyists get together and make something. Ive heard BlueSky has a board of people in charge to make sure it doesn’t end up like twitter. Exactly what one would expect a company to do. Make sure something doesnt go wrong? Put a few people in charge. Mastodon just has the whole community. I may be wrong here as I dont use either. Right now Im just wondering what will happen when BlueSkys provider comes knocking with the hosting bill. As mass social media migrations are rare, its just a shame people are leaving twitter for another big tech site instead of something more community grown.
from what i understand, a decentralized bluesky is nothing for an enduser at all.
TL;DR: the cost for an enduser to run a bluesky instance will soon be prohibitive because of the amount of storage needed owed to its shared heap architecture. but what it does is to provide a “credible exit” - if users lose trust or the company shutters, there’s nothing in the way of another organisation picking up the mantle and continue from there on.
Not friendica, which seems an obvious facebook alternative.
Also, I think they’re onto something with their fuck it approach that every social media platform would benefit from. The internet was mostly that before. Content moderation primarily serves advertisers, it was never really for the people. Old internet anarchy was chaotic fun.
Lemmy has also taken over advertiser focused moderation patterns. A great example is NSFW. What is NSFW exactly? Not safe for work? Why is that relevant?
NSFW is literally just advertiser unfriendly content. Why else group nakedness, violence, sexual content, and death in the same category?
It’s way too vague to be useful, you have no idea if you’re going to see a nipple or a murder.Content warnings like on Mastodon are better, but don’t provide a way to reliably filter out categories. I personally think it would be way better to have specific nested tags for certain types of material.
Are you new to the internet? NSFW literally means what it says: it’s content that would not be safe for you to be viewing at work.
Advertising has nothing to do with it, which is why you still get ads on NSFW boards on 4chan; they’re just NSFW ads.
If you work from home it becomes NSFH.
Content moderation primarily serves advertisers
I’m lost, here. Do you not think fighting toxicity and hate speech is a valid and important function of moderation that’s just as much or more for the sake of the people as it might be for advertisers?
I think that it’s just words & images on a screen that we could easily ignore like people did before, and people are indulging a grandiose conceit by thinking that moderation is that important or serves any greater cause than the interests of moderators. On social media that seems to be to serve the consumers, by which I mean the advertisers & commercial interests who pay for the attention of users. While the old internet approach of ignoring, gawking at the freakshow, or ridiculing/flaming toxic & hateful shit worked fine then resulting in many people disengaging, ragequitting, or going outside to do something better, that’s not great for advertisers protecting their brand & wanting to keep people pliant & unchallenged as they stay engaged in their uncritical filter bubbles & echo chambers.
With old internet, safety wasn’t an internet nanny, thought police shit, and “stop burning my virgin eyes & ears”. It was an anonymous handle, not revealing personally identifying information (a/s/l?), not falling for scams & giving out payment information (unless you’re into that kinky shit). Glad to see newer social media returning to some of that.
I wholeheartedly agree, the only censorship should be in the individuals hands and only affects them. Aka blocking other users or content from being displayed on your own account. My moral compass does not need to be everyone’s moral compass.
Toxicity doesn’t “work fine,” it’s contagious and destructive. For projects, it slows progress. For communities in general, it reinforces bad behavior and pushes out newcomers, leading to more negative spaces, isolation, and stagnation, just off the top of my head. These were issues in older communities just as they are in modern ones.
I don’t see why we should abandon moderation for your benefit, at the expense of people who care.
For projects, it slows progress.
Your example of toxicity is linux maintainers resisting a newer programming language, not wanting to maintain additional bindings, and being stubborn about it? People decide whether to work & agree with each other, so what’s your definition of toxicity here? How’s moderation supposed to solve that: force people to agree & work together unwillingly? Seems rather authoritarian. People should only put words & images on a screen that someone approves? More authoritarian. And look at those imaginary problems we can solve!
This goes back to the grandiose conceit I wrote about earlier: some people can’t get over themselves, take these words & images on a screen a bit too seriously, and feel they know better than others the right words & images to put on a screen, because of course they do. The rest of us know it’s just a bunch of self-important crap that doesn’t matter unless we make it matter, and we can ignore it or put our own words & images on a screen or go outside.
You streamed together a sequence of misunderstandings, fallacies and self-victimization into an incoherent pile of garbage that fails at actually responding to anything. Got it, got it, you’re god’s bravest warrior, resisting the authoritarianism of people who think others shouldn’t be forced to tolerate your immaturity whenever you act like a cunt. I’ll stop giving you attention now, so sorry.
Victimization is all on those like you threatened by naughty words & images who claim we need some great moderator hero to defend us against their toxicity, which apparently includes work-related disagreements.
people who think others shouldn’t be forced to tolerate your immaturity whenever you act like a cunt
And they’ll be objective about it, or is anything someone disagrees with instance of immaturity & someone acting like a cunt? Do we need the noble internet police to swoop in and protect us against your words & images? They’re here, yet somehow the world isn’t crumbling.
didn’t read, easy block, shoulda done this sooner
I think the rise of hate speech on centralised platforms relies very heavily on their centralised moderation and curation via algorithms.
They have all known for a long time that their algorithms promote hate speech, but they know that curbing that behaviour negatively affects their revenue, so they don’t do it. They chase the fast buck, and they appease advertisers who have a naturally conservative bent, and that means rage bait and conventional values.
That’s quite apart from when platform owners explicitly support that hate speech and actively suppress left leaning voices.
I think what we have on decentralised systems where we curate/moderate for ourselves works well because most of that open hate speech is siloed, which I think is the best thing you can do with it.
The Internet was never supposed to have a central authority beyond the DNS tables.
Imagine traveling down a liminal space of tubes and the only signs are nondescript TLDs.
So thats why it was slow for a while.
Cool, everybody can build these companies up so that they can launch their IPOs and be controlled by a new board of directors fresh from wall street. It will all be so different.
The whole point of federation is that that can’t really happen, or at least they can fuck a single server, but not the whole ecosystem.
Not commenting on Bluesky, but the others have taken steps to differentiate themselves
Mastodon was handed over to a non profit
https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/13/24342603/mastodon-non-profit-ownership-ceo-eugen-rochko
Signal has been under a nonprofit
Being open source also means that people can fork the apps if something changes, or apps + server code in the case of a lot of fediverse software
Are we that degenerate already??
YES! #winning
