cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/17686207

It’s a very long post, but a lot of it is a detailed discussion of terminology in the appendix – no need to read that unless you’re into definitional struggles.

  • Blaze (he/him)
    link
    fedilink
    English
    492 months ago

    Hello,

    I skimmed through the article. Isn’t Bluesky one billionaire purchase away from becoming the new X (and in this case, I don’t mean Twitter)?

    • The Nexus of PrivacyOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      112 months ago

      Yep. And that’s far from the only way it could work out badly. I talk about this a bit in the section on “Bluesky is a useful counterweight to Threads”

      Bluesky is far from perfect. They’re venture-funded, so likely to end with an exploitative business model. They’ve got a surveillance-capitalism friendly all-public architecture. It’s great that Jack Dorsey’s no longer on the board but he was.

      • flamingos-cant
        link
        fedilink
        English
        312 months ago

        This is straight up misinformation, Dorsey was on the Bluesky’s board, but left in May. As far as I’m aware, he’s never even invested in the company (but he has given money to the nostr devs).

        • The Nexus of PrivacyOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 months ago

          Correct. Dorsey’s early involvement is certainly grounds for concern – the way I think of it, he’s gone now but his stench lingers on – but he’s not influential there going forward.

        • aasatru
          link
          fedilink
          32 months ago

          It did originate from Twitter. Somehow Twitter at the time considered it wise to split it into a separate entity, and Dorsey was fine with not controlling it. And then Twitter was sold, and Dorsey and Bluesky grew apart from each other.