Technology

Normies don't do change

I had a really good friend on MySpace that I lost touch with. I think he was a little paranoid, we didn't speak much and he was always looking over his shoulder. His name was Tom.

But now I have nostalgia for MySpace lol. Digg… not so much

I would say quitting twitter to join bluesky is more like quitting menthols to smoke regular cigarettes, and switching to a decentralized platform would be more analogous to a switch to vaping. Quitting social media entirely would equate better to 'quitting smoking' in my mind, as i dont think any platform is mentally healthful (yes i am fully aware of the hypocrisy of posting this comment as a lemmy user).

Where can I get this list?

I left Twitter years ago, but I think you could also block whoever you want, whether people do it more or less is independent of the site, the moderation tools are the same. 3

What's more, I am 100% sure that if in a few years Bluesky considers it economically beneficial for its shareholders that these tools "have occasional failures" this will happen without a doubt. This is something that if happens in Mastodon, changing the node you are done

If they're still allowed on the platform to speak their mind amongst their ilk, doesn't that just create an echo chamber of idiots? Assuming they stay instead of leaving after their fe-fes get hurt, of course.

It has a single owner who makes the decisions and makes profitable the contributions of the users. It is a social media model that has been over for me for some time now, if they are open the better for them, I am not going to join anyway.

Things never change, companies never break promises, shareholders never hold power over decision, people can not be bought

Those would all have to be true in order for anyone to have a reason to put trust into Bluesky.

Not really. You can host your own data but you still rely on Bluesky’s services to access it. And there is no realistic way to migrate your content or audience to another platform outside their control

I'm not going to discuss it with you, because I'm not a doctor nor is it the issue, but the health authorities (at least the European ones) do not agree with your statement.

a bunch of centralized platforms?

This is what decentralized means. If your home instance goes to shit, you can just move your account to another one.

If something has hundreds of "centralised" platforms owned and run by a diversity of different people and spread all over the world geographically, then that's "decentralised".

I can't really think of another way in which something could be decentralised.

With ActivityPub, there's nothing stopping you hosting a server literally just for yourself. It wouldn't get much more decentralised than that.

IIRC the content is on multiple. If there's a single user on lemmy.world subscribing to content from somewhere.else's foo community, then foo will be synced to lemmy.world and if somewhere.else is taken down it will remain on lemmy.world.

But someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, it isn't just about servers going offline. If a single server does something bad, you can just switch to a different one and enjoy the same content you've been seeing.

Well, I am not a systems engineer to answer your question, in any case smaller Hitlers equals Hitlers with less power. Dividing power is not the definitive solution to authoritarianism, but it usually helps a lot, especially if the agents are also competitive. "If you are too Hitler, I'll go to this other server that is a little less so" is a valid incentive to avoid the Hitlerization of the admins.

I don't think I've ever used the name Hitler so much.

Yeah I've been trying to convince an acquaintance to use mastodon instead of Twitter for a while then yesterday he mentioned he created a bluesky account and I had to look it up, not great but better I guess