A photograph of a short-eared owl mid-flight was the last Instagram post biology professor Carl Bergstrom shared before announcing his departure from the platform Jan. 10.
Problem is it absolutely will turn when the Bluesky owners Jay Graber and Jack Dorsey decide it’s time to cash in. The project started out as a way to start decentralizing twitter, but they never actually accomplished that goal.
Jack Dorsey never had ownership (just directed an investment) and left the board (didn’t agree with moderation, lol)
Jay also isn’t majority owner.
It’s a public benefit corporation too so they don’t have a profit requirement.
The harder parts with decentralizing content-addressed systems like it is scaling open spaces (like how a microblog is technically one big shared space). You need big caches and big indexes. They’re working actively on making it easier for others to run those app servers. There’s already a few independent projects building them. Federating account hosting and feed generation and moderation services are all live already
Leaving the board of directors is pretty much as giving up ownership rights. He has nothing to do with Bluesky anymore and he makes us sure he doesn’t want to.
Why is it a problem? If a tool is good now, I’ll use it now.
I don’t stop myself from buying a new axe just because it’ll break eventually, you know what I mean?
Although obviously if there was an axe that never would break, I’d buy that! But maybe there are trade-offs. Maybe the never-breaking axe has a complicated handle or something. I don’t know, I’m trying my best with the axe analogy to describe Bluesky vs Mastodon. 😅 Hopefully it’s clear enough!
It’s a problem for the same reason twitter dying sucks… The network effect is important, and maintaining yours during a slow, piecemeal mass migration is hard. Which is why I’m sticking with mastodon now, despite more of my relevant network being on BS.
Right, that’s the sure-fire way. But if a platform is better in some way than another, I’m inclined to use it, as long as it’s morally just to do so.
I like Bluesky because it’s more like Twitter was. But I like Mastodon because of how liberated it is. So I’ll use both, probably, until Bluesky turns to shit (or doesn’t).
Problem is it absolutely will turn when the Bluesky owners Jay Graber and Jack Dorsey decide it’s time to cash in. The project started out as a way to start decentralizing twitter, but they never actually accomplished that goal.
Jack Dorsey never had ownership (just directed an investment) and left the board (didn’t agree with moderation, lol)
Jay also isn’t majority owner.
It’s a public benefit corporation too so they don’t have a profit requirement.
The harder parts with decentralizing content-addressed systems like it is scaling open spaces (like how a microblog is technically one big shared space). You need big caches and big indexes. They’re working actively on making it easier for others to run those app servers. There’s already a few independent projects building them. Federating account hosting and feed generation and moderation services are all live already
Jack Dorsey has nothing to do with Bluesky
Aside from being its founder. I know he left the board, but I haven’t seen any reason to believe he gave up ownership rights.
Leaving the board of directors is pretty much as giving up ownership rights. He has nothing to do with Bluesky anymore and he makes us sure he doesn’t want to.
Leaving the board of directors means no day to day control, but he could still exert influence on a shareholders vote.
He’s not a shareholder, and also it’s a public benefit corporation so shareholders have less power over the board
Equity ownership is not public. Why would he sell?
https://bsky.app/profile/jay.bsky.team/post/3krxdfy6koc22
He never had ownership. Not all investments provide ownership.
It means he doesn’t directly manage it. Proof that he sold his ownership to somebody else would be evidence of giving up ownership rights.
He never had ownership. The investment was in the form of a contract to build the protocol, not buying shares.
Why is it a problem? If a tool is good now, I’ll use it now.
I don’t stop myself from buying a new axe just because it’ll break eventually, you know what I mean?
Although obviously if there was an axe that never would break, I’d buy that! But maybe there are trade-offs. Maybe the never-breaking axe has a complicated handle or something. I don’t know, I’m trying my best with the axe analogy to describe Bluesky vs Mastodon. 😅 Hopefully it’s clear enough!
It’s a problem for the same reason twitter dying sucks… The network effect is important, and maintaining yours during a slow, piecemeal mass migration is hard. Which is why I’m sticking with mastodon now, despite more of my relevant network being on BS.
We can avoid it ever becoming shit when a wannabe dictator buys it if we make it impossible to sell: like mastodon and other federated options.
Right, that’s the sure-fire way. But if a platform is better in some way than another, I’m inclined to use it, as long as it’s morally just to do so.
I like Bluesky because it’s more like Twitter was. But I like Mastodon because of how liberated it is. So I’ll use both, probably, until Bluesky turns to shit (or doesn’t).