Can we please stop acting as if federation is a silver bullet. There’s plenty of issues it in fact makes worse and is ill-equipped for. Humans are very dynamic. Federation is not suited for government at least in the US. The country is already divided, in no world would I ever want blue states and red states to be able to defederate each other. There’s also complex dynamics such as family. You don’t want to be on an instance where your family and friends are blocked from communicating with you. It’s also not a perfect solution to host a family & friend instance as a family member or friend can get your instance defederated and you lose connections. For the masses it would be better if it was a centralised service owned by a nonprofit that got popular. This isn’t to say federation is terrible, it’s just not the magical solution I’ve seen it sold as. PS. Stop telling the lie that users “own” their connections. You no more own it here than on Facebook especially considering on Facebook users are likely to know each other in real life. If someone moves to a server they’re unaware is blocked by a server that the majority of their friends are on, those connections are gone. So much for “ownership” #OpenSocialWeb #Fediverse #NewSocial #BigSocial #BigTech
@damon The silver bullet assumes every problem can be solved by divvying everything up into little digital fiefdoms which talk to each other.
I don't like Bluesky the company but I found elements of it interesting (the company plays more of a role than people assume, for instance, harassing lists might be deleted).
Like Mastodon, I feel Bluesky over-sells itself. It claims to be decentralized but the claim rings hollow. Similarly, Mastodon sold a very civil space but this set people up with unrealistic expectations.
