As Twitter self-immolates, I am seeing people I know setting up on Bluesky.
I find this perplexing. Can people really not learn the lesson that a social network owned by a capitalist is a social network they don't control?
You can argue about whether Bluesky or Mastodon has the better technology, but what's 100% clear is that Mastodon is run BY users FOR users. And that difference is the only one that matters in the end.
@mike well, have you discussed it with some of the actual people joining Bluesky?
You say you find it perplexing, and I don't think the best way to figure that out is to talk to the people around here who are largely opposed to making that choice.
I would say, though, that users don't control this platform either, so that isn't really a differentiating point.
Well, did you find their answers confusing, or in what other way were they insufficient to clarify why they were using it?
@volkris I think in the context of my original post, my answer is obvious: that the things the Mastodon-rejecters dislike, while real issues, seem to me much less significant than the owned-by-a-totalitarian downside.
Ah, it sounds like I misunderstood the original post then.
I thought you were saying you didn't understand why people went to the other platforms, when really it's that you don't understand why they have those particular weighings of values.
I think I got it now.
Me, I'm on their side. I really don't care who's running the system so long as it provides value, and the moment it stops providing value I'm gone.
Just like I don't care who's running the restaurant I go to, or who's running my doctor's office: no matter who's in charge, I'll go there for good service and not go there for bad service.
@volkris "when really it’s that you don’t understand why they have those particular weighings of values."
I guess that's a fair summary.
Although it would be more accurate to say that I lament that they don't seem to recognise the (to me) most important value at all.
@volkris "Me, I’m on their side. I really don’t care who’s running the system so long as it provides value, and the moment it stops providing value I’m gone."
That is a totally legitimate attitude. The problem with it is that Bluesky finishes speedrunning the Twitter enhittification curve and you have to move on again, you will once more lose your social graph.
Yep, and I'm completely OK with that.
In fact, I'd extend what I said above to be about my social graph: my whole network moves when the service gets bad, just as we'd stop meeting at a restaurant when they nosedive, and we find another.
It's just not a big deal for us, so I wouldn't lose my social graph. The whole thing just picks up and moves on.
That might be part of why we don't have to care about that concern. We're never beholden to any platform, always assuming all platforms will eventually end, and always one bad experience away from picking up and moving on.
@volkris Sounds like you have a small, tight network!
Ha, I suppose for some definition of small.
Dozens of people? Spanning various platforms?
I mean, we keep in touch, but we don't get tied down to any particular platform, and I'd suggest to others that they take the same approach.
Use platforms as tools, but don't rely on anything being provided by others, always keep in mind the alternatives because at any moment any platform may be shut down.
@volkris It's solid advice.
@volkris Yes I have.