this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
118 points (91.0% liked)
Asklemmy
44141 readers
1012 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The problem I see with BlueSky is, what's the difference between Bluesky and Twitter?
Did any learning take place? "Okay, clean sheet design, let's do it again but better this time" what did they do to keep Bluesky from going the exact same direction Twitter did?
I've been using it a couple of weeks and loving it. It's just the way Twitter used to be - fun, quality content, from the people you choose to follow.
No algorithm trying to feed you recommendations. No paid-for blue ticks. No hate-filled bile being ignored or endorsed by those in charge. If someone's trolling you block/report them and they're gone, just like that.
At the moment it's more or less everything Twitter should be. It may or may not last, but for the moment it's great.
twitter's recommendation algorithm keeps serving me absolute bangers and i actually kinda like it :/
Ha, fair enough - if it works for you, then ok :-)
The moderation and blocking on BlueSky set it apart from Twitter.
It doesn't promote and endorse literal Nazis. Why y'all pretending like this isn't a big difference?
Yet.
It's a commercial platform, it's going to enshittify because that's what commercial platforms do.
Yeah let's not confuse that for openly promoting and endorsing Nazis okay?
"Less nazi than Twitter for the next few months" isn't good enough for me to adopt it. I'm not going to board a doomed ship.
Let me be perfectly clear here: Fuck Elon Musk right in the aorta. I am NOT endorsing Twitter here. What I'm mostly doing is endorsing abandoning both microblogging and commercial for-profit social media as concepts.
Bluesky is gonna get worse. They're in attract mode right now just like any tech startup; they're burning venture capital money operating at a loss in too good to be true mode to gather users and when they hit a certain adoption rate or simultaneous active user base all the shit Twitter and Threads do is gonna get turned on.
"It's got moderation." It's got thought police in potentia. Either they're going to start using their moderation systems as a political cudgel or they're going to start letting scammers and shit through because they profit from the traffic whatever that traffic is. You won't be able to say the word "poop" but commercials for anorexia pills will make it through to teenagers. Can you name a commercial platform that didn't eventually do one or both of those? The only one I can think of that didn't just die young was MySpace, which continued to exist into its irrelevancy.
I foresee a cycle of instability that goes something like "New platform just dropped, it's like Facebook but it isn't Facebook. It's like Facebook used to be before algorithms fucked it up." Early adopters join it, there's a period where you still have to have Facebook because three of your friends whose ability to understand things doesn't work won't make the switch, eventually people leave those friends, everyone is standardized on the new thing, new thing does exactly what Facebook did, it fucks the world up again, "New platform just dropped, it's like Screechbox but isn't Screechbox, it's like Screechbox before algorithms fucked it up."
I'm kicking that in the head right now.
The problem is mostly that people see that as a natural progression of the free market, so they're okay with it. That, and/or they're totally blind to the fact that people like musk are symptomatic of a deeper problem with the system at work here. Myspace, early internet forums, any form of less explicitly centralized internet, those get blamed for not being "good enough" as a platform, compared to these other, more "successful" ventures, which inevitably use spam to make money or attract nazis to bolster their userbase in a short term bargain. It doesn't matter to your average user that those platforms fell apart explicitly because larger market actors all swam around them like pirahnas and blasted them with spam and bots and all that shit in order to explicitly tear them apart and try to make a quick buck off of their shit.
In the market, that's seen as a you problem, as a personal failing, if you can't avoid that, or if you're not willing to play along with that. That's the average person's view of any previous platform. These platforms rise and fall like, almost every decade or so at this point, more at the onset, obviously. People don't have enough of a long term memory to remember why the last platform died and how it followed the exact same trajectory as the current thing.
You people are fucking insane. You act like what the Muskrat is doing is normal and inevitable. No, a billionaire owner of a website losing his mind acting like an infant and going online publicly promoting and endorsing Nazis it's not the norm. It's not the inevitable Next Step.
How many ethnic cleansings has Facebook been instrumental in? I can think of at least one in Myanmar.
Large commercial platforms being absolutely evil is NOT unique to Twitter. Again I challenge you to name me a large social media platform that didn't either rot into a wasteland of scam bots or start committing atrocities.
Very bad people own almost everything and their solution to any rising star is to buy and ruin it.
Hell, I don't want to adopt a platform that's doomed to get as bad as Youtube let alone Facebook or Twitter. You've got to show me some low level structure that says "Here is why it can't fall the way the last ones did."
I don't give a shit about the Bluesky stock you bought. Bluesky is doomed, don't adopt it.
Ooh clever moving of the goal post there. Show me one example of Mark Zuckerberg posting to Facebook about how awesome a literal Nazi is. Personally unblocking said Nazi , and endorsing their message . That's the discussion buddy.
Okay, you have issues. Or are a troll. Or are a troll with issues.
I consider Twitter a dead platform because it is a nazi hellhole and I strongly recommend everyone just stop using it.
At this point though I do genuinely believe Facebook is worse because they've had a direct hand in at least one ethnic cleansing during my lifetime. Elon may quack like a duck but Zuckerberg swims, flies and waddles like a duck. I strongly recommend everyone just stops using Facebook and Instagram as well.
BUT ANYWAY, let me ask this: What's stopping Elon Musk from buying Bluesky, badging it as X2 and doing the whole thing over again? Bluesky is currently a private for-profit company operating mainly on venture capital, just like Twitter was when it was a startup. It's never going to support itself on its own revenue, that venture capital will eventually run out, there will be an IPO, it will suddenly be open to the whims of shareholders who will demand dark patterns and engagement at all costs and everything that has made the rest of the internet suck and they won't care if their algorithms boost genocidal messages that erupt in widespread violence as long as their dividends come in.
It's just a nope from me, and everything you will ever say will further convince me.
You realize the entirety of your argument here is that yeah sure Twitter might be full of Nazis and pedophiles and all that terrible stuff right now but Blue Sky could be later in the future if certain unlikely things happen? Do you realize what an absurd argument that is?
Nope. My argument is not absurd because not using any of them is an option. You realize that's a thing you can do, right? Give none of them your attention?
What on earth does that have to do with anything? That was never the topic of discussion. You said they were the same. I said they're not the same as one doesn't literally endorse and promote Nazis, you said yet. As if it is an inevitability, even ignoring the fact that who cares what could possibly happen in a nebulous hypothetical future, right now they're clearly not the same. You're just an absurd person.
I'm not sure why you want to try and normalize and trivialize the idea of promoting Nazism on a website.
I was right, you're a troll. Eat sand.