Then come over to Mastodon…
I do not see anything to be angry or disappointed about?
Verification badge was good, the dumb thing Twitter did was throw it away by letting anyone pay for it.
If the same authority is doing verification that is also doing moderation and both ultimately in a for profit setting, that has conflict of interest.
We dont know how reliable bluesky moderation will stay. We dont know how they will respond to political pressure. We dont know how they will monetize past the growth phase and then could also argue a “service fee” for verification.
In a perfect world none of these would happen, but then everybody could still be on twitter and be fine there.
Nah it was not good. Domain names already do that and are accessible to all at all times with full transparency and decentralization. Bluesky is literally regressing.
Even mastodon’s verification system is better than checkmarks.
domain names do that for people with well known domain names, and verification processes do that for people without
Yup. Need something like EV certs to really verify… And that would only make sense if it’s a “no (non-real) screennames” kind of thing.
i think the .id.au domain licensing rules are a pretty reasonable middle-ground:
https://www.auda.org.au/au-domain-names/the-different-au-domain-names/id-au-domain-names/
The id.au domain name you choose must match or be an acronym or abbreviation of your first name or family name, or your nickname
you have to provide ID to register any .au, so you’re verified as a person, and though they don’t pre-check your nickname, AFAIK if there’s a complaint you do have to prove that you’re “known by” that name
Bluesky is the new X. After canceling the accounts of Turkish protesters this is the next step for the big money behind Bluesky. That’s why I deleted my account a few days ago.
What’s the story with the Turkish protesters?
The way the article describes Turkey and the press is the same thing that’s been happening in the US with the legacy (state funded) media. Hopefully, that’s changing now though.
I can’t believe the guy who originally administered the creation of Twitter would do all the exact same things that originally made him billions of dollars selling the company to Elon Musk.
There’s no way he’s just speed-running what he did last time in hopes of another $44B buyout.
So long as the checkmark isn’t bought through some subscription service, I’m fine with this.
The whole reason why verification exists is because other will steal the name of someone famous and masquerade as them, with real world consequences. A verification system now means that certain platforms and people will get more attracted to be there, and thus Bluesky will grow.
Anyone who is surprised that BlueSky is going down the same path as Twitter (X, not withstanding) belongs on BlueSky.
idk man I haven’t seen anyone complaining about it on Bluesky
This is a net positive, nice to have a social media where verification checks are…actually used for verifying the person behind an account
But isn’t the domain already doing that?
If they are, and there isn’t anything to display it, how are we to know what’s been vetted and what’s slipped through the cracks? Especially on a new account?
It’s the username so already quite visible.
For example someone at say, NPR, could use a name like @bob.npr.org which is only possible by verifying ownership of the npr.org domain name, so there is no need to vet anything.
That’s great for an organization like NPR which may have the resources to tie its own domain name into Bluesky. For some freelance reporter or otherwise verifiable person, I’m not sure it’s quite so practical.
Domains are dirt cheap.
And tying it to the Bluesky system? Not sure the cost of that (I swear I saw it was a potential monetization they were looking into) but also the time to figure it out isn’t practical for everyone.
free (or at least it was when I did it)
Bluesky, the decentralized social network […]
Were only one instance exist or did I miss something?
Nope, it’s 100% centralized.
It’s 100% centralized, but with the ability to be decentralized. Sorta like Threads before they started federating
The “ability” to decentralize has costs that scale quadratically. So in every practical sense, it cannot be decentralized. At best it could have a few servers that participate.
No, it doesn’t scale “quadratically”. That’s what going viral on Mastodon does to a small instance, not on bluesky. Pretty much everything scales linearly. The difference is certain components handle a larger fraction of the work (appview and relay).
Both a bluesky appview and a Mastodon instance scales by the size of the userbase which it interacts with. Mastodon likes to imagine that the userbase will always be consistent, but it isn’t. Anything viewed by a large part of the whole Mastodon network forces the host to serve the entirety of the network and all its interactions. So does a bluesky appview, in just the same way, but they acknowledge this upfront.
Meanwhile, you CAN host a bluesky PDS account host and have your traffic scale only by the rate of your users’ activity + number of relays you push these updates to. Going viral doesn’t kill your bandwidth.
I can’t speak to how traffic costs and mastodon works, but this article explains how having multiple blue skies federating with each other scales quadratically. https://dustycloud.org/blog/how-decentralized-is-bluesky/ it is very thorough.
In fact, it is worse than the storage requirements, because the message delivery requirements become quadratic at the scale of full decentralization: to send a message to one user is to send a message to all. Rather than writing one letter, a copy of that letter must be made and delivered to every person on earth
That’s written assuming the edge case of EVERYBODY running a full relay and appview, and that’s not per-node scaling cost but global scaling cost.
Because they don’t scale like that, global cost is geometric instead (for every full relay and appview, there’s one full copy with linear scaling to network activity), and each server only handles the cost for serving their own users’ activity (plus firehose/jetstream subscription & filtering for those who need it)
For Mastodon instance costs, try ask the former maintainers of https://botsin.space/
I’m sad that bots in space had to spin down, but there are still bots on Mastodon. One server quitting didn’t take everything down.
The part where if a mastodon post gets popular, it has to serve that to everyone makes sense because it’s kind of like a website. Maybe there could be a CDN like Cloudflare that a mastodon server could use to cache responses?
The part about Bluesky that doesn’t sound good to me is “to send a message to one user is to send it to all”. Wouldn’t this be crazy with even 100 servers for 10000 users, vs 2 servers with 5000 each? Not sure how the math works but it doesn’t look good if they have to duplicate so much traffic.
deleted by creator
Yous are hyping it a basic verification system which can’t be bought and is handed out for the sake of showing credibility is a good thing
The sake of credibility? What decides that though? Likes? Likes are a big problem imo. It doesn’t really do anything except create echo chambers.
Bluesky is like a mini example of why Communism and Capitalism does not work. Centralization is a drug.
Editing to explain as some did not make the connection. This is a comment about centralization that even when a system has the best intentions like communism and in this case Blusky, centralization still will lead to corruption as anything centralized is ripe for takeover as power is a drug.
You can not make any commentary on Communism here. You will get down voted even if your criticism was correct. Probably even more so and the reason why this is likely to get downvoted out of hand, as well.
Edit: Proven right. Yet again
That is ok. I have never had an issue sharing facts that may trigger some. In fact the only reason it triggers some is it hits somewhere deep.
Not really but go off
What fact is incorrect?
All of it? Your definition of communism is the same as that of the failed dictatorships of the 20th century.
When most people nowadays talk about socialism or communism they talk about a democracy in the workplace and in politics. People who want a strong state that owns everything are a loud minority in leftist circles, as you can see on lemmy. But they’re not as big in real life.
Lemmy & Reddit
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Jack Dorsey hasn’t been around for a long time.
deleted by creator
To quote my well known journalist friend after switching from twitter “what’s that? Oh, that open source stuff? Hahaha nah bruh, mastodon is silly”
Normies will not go on Mastodon.
Reminds me of a meeting my co-worker and I had with the IT staff of a company that is a customer using research instruments in our facility. The meeting was to ask us to enable data synchronization through SharePoint. (We’re a Linux shop.) We asked what the issue was with getting their data files with SFTP. They said, “It’s open source.”
Then, a few beats of silence as it sinks in for us that there is no next step in the chain of logic. That is the totality of their objection.
Ok so they knew enough about software to use open source correctly in a sentence, but could not even list one reason why they didn’t want to use it.
We had to fight tooth and nail to get even a few of us able to use Ubuntu on our development machines (even though 90% of our servers are Ubuntu). The old heads in IT were like, “Uhh that open-source stuff? We use Windows for security”. Like wtf?? Lack of cognitive dissonance much? They are completely brainwashed by the old Microsoft FUD
The amount of moments of “and therefore?” This stumps me equally with my small child as it does clients. Like, why TF are you saying this thing? How is that your supporting argument. There’s no argument! What’s your fucking thesis statement damnit?!
