“Bluesky is called a decentralized network and uses the term federation. The problem is that their technology, from the point of view of power dynamics, is not decentralized at all,” emphasizes Christine Lemmer-Webber, an expert on decentralized social protocols. “The use of some decentralisation techniques, but the decentralized service itself is not today. There is one big company that controls the flow of information, and without which this network cannot operate at the moment.”
This does not mean that moving from X/Twitter to Bluesky is a bad idea. “I appreciate that Bluesky wants to build a service that can quickly fully replace Twitter. But I don’t think they should claim that this service is decentralized and instead focus on the date of a “trustworthy way”.
@sabreW4K3 Well that's a pretty nonsensical take.
The use of some decentralization techniques? It is decentralized because it uses decentralization techniques, and that's all there is to it. It is far more decentralized than this platform because of the techniques it uses. It focuses on users instead of centralizing around instances.
From the point of view of power dynamics? GTFO with that BS.
No, BlueSky is decentralized. It is more decentralized than this platform. These people are trying really really hard to bend things and find problems that don't really match reality.
And they need to be called out over it.
I really wish this platform was more decentralized, but that's not how the engineers designed it, and we need to call them out over it.
Sorry, I hate to be that guy, but since you’re dismissing the opinion of one of the people that designed the first decentralised social media protocol, I’m going to assume it’s because you’re better qualified to make the assessment. Can I ask, what are your qualifications?
@sabreW4K3 My qualification is that I've read the protocol documentation and seen the way it centralizes around instances?
