Bluesky made more money selling T-shirts mocking Mark Zuckerberg in one day than it has in two years of selling custom domains
-
I thought this was slightly funny.
Mark Zuckerberg is known these days for wearing t-shirts with Latin phrases on them, especially ones where he compares himself to Julius Caesar.
Bluesky made a shirt in the same style, but theirs says "a world without Caesars" in Latin.
I guess most people who want to use a domain as their username aready have that domain.
-
What does this mean? Am I old?
more likely young
-
I obviously support ActivityPub or I wouldn’t be posting this here but one of the AtProtocol developers bought a Raspberry Pi with 8GB ram and added an NVME drive. He’s trying to prove (or possibly make) this point wrong.
https://bsky.app/profile/why.bsky.teamSo far, it seems like it’s “working” but he’s found some things that are way too slow and needs to be fixed for it to run on a Raspberry Pi. But that gives me some confidence that the developers, at least, aren’t trying to make it so only people with deep pockets can run an instance. (I don’t know what the investors want but the developers aren’t scheming assholes.)
It’s probably going to ultimately be a situation where anyone with a high end PC (by today’s standards) can run their own instance. It’s definitely not an A.I. situation where you have to reopen Three Mile Island and piss away more water than Nestle to self-host.
Yeah nope. At least not so far and i dont see why it would change. The current situation is that you can host stuff yourself, but you wont be able to connect and federate with any other servers or users without their permission. Its not a level playing field and it never will be.
Lemmy (and similarly any other federated system) is only NOT enshittified because people successfully grew lots of competing servers and therefore prevented a monopoly power. If lemmy.world hosted 90% of lemmy users, i guarantee that it would have quickly turned to shit.
Even if bluesky was using proper federation and people started setting up other AT Protocol instances, bluesky would still hold 99.9999% of all users. They have literally zero reason to change this situation and changing it would cost them millions in advertisement for other completely independent instances.
-
That's cool!
I'm also a big fan of what Bridgy Fed is capable of doing towards Bluesky - it does show that there is a lot one can actually do with the protocol.
As I read the situation it's complicated. They are not inherently evil—on the contrary, I think they are trying to do good—but they are locked down by the structural chains around them. The whole thing was initiated by Jack Dorsey, and from the onset they wanted to re-create Twitter while solving what they perceived as "moderation challenges", and with the starting point that they were to create the next Twitter, not a decentralized network of services.
Hell, wasn't the original idea that Twitter itself would become part of the network?
When I see Bluesky today I see Twitter 15+ years ago. A lot of optimism and goodwill, but nevertheless a project that is doomed from the start.
I actually view it the opposite. Lemmy isn't necessarily doomed from the start but we will not reach mass adoption because we are too clunky to use for most users because of its distributed nature.
Bluesky has enabled tons of non tech users to immediately reap the rewards without having to worry about instances or who can see their posts, while maintaining decentralization (albeit with a high cost).
The true path forward will probably be a world like Bluesky but instead of running your own relay, your contributing compute power to a Kubernetes cluster. Instances and having to worry about federation is far too clunky for most users, it's the reason mastodon never saw mass adoption while Bluesky almost immediately did.
-
I thought this was slightly funny.
Mark Zuckerberg is known these days for wearing t-shirts with Latin phrases on them, especially ones where he compares himself to Julius Caesar.
Bluesky made a shirt in the same style, but theirs says "a world without Caesars" in Latin.
That's all well and good, but the problem remains: Namely, the fact that Meta earns far more every day than all companies worldwide earn from the sale of T-shirts put together - much,much more. And Meta pretty much doesn't even sell anything (Oculus, c'mon). They mainly just sell massive reach for advertisements and PR (influencing opinions). In addition they sell, the personal data of users to make it work devilishly acuarate. As long as the vast majority don't care how this business model works and what power the centralization of attention means for their reality, nothing will change, I'm afraid.
-
I actually view it the opposite. Lemmy isn't necessarily doomed from the start but we will not reach mass adoption because we are too clunky to use for most users because of its distributed nature.
Bluesky has enabled tons of non tech users to immediately reap the rewards without having to worry about instances or who can see their posts, while maintaining decentralization (albeit with a high cost).
The true path forward will probably be a world like Bluesky but instead of running your own relay, your contributing compute power to a Kubernetes cluster. Instances and having to worry about federation is far too clunky for most users, it's the reason mastodon never saw mass adoption while Bluesky almost immediately did.
I don't think usability problems in Lemmy are related to the protocol. For me open source alternatives carry the promise that they will only get better, while profit-oriented alternatives will eventually have to get worse.
I don't think any of what makes Lemmy difficult to use is a necessity based on its distributed nature; its a result of the developers being more geared towards the back-end than towards the front-end. Which is not an inherent weakness - the back-end needs to be good before a nice front-end can make sense. So I'm optimistic.
-
Yeah nope. At least not so far and i dont see why it would change. The current situation is that you can host stuff yourself, but you wont be able to connect and federate with any other servers or users without their permission. Its not a level playing field and it never will be.
Lemmy (and similarly any other federated system) is only NOT enshittified because people successfully grew lots of competing servers and therefore prevented a monopoly power. If lemmy.world hosted 90% of lemmy users, i guarantee that it would have quickly turned to shit.
Even if bluesky was using proper federation and people started setting up other AT Protocol instances, bluesky would still hold 99.9999% of all users. They have literally zero reason to change this situation and changing it would cost them millions in advertisement for other completely independent instances.
Their federation doesn't work the same as Lemmy & Mastodon there's no federation to individual servers.
If Bluesky introduced ads to their app, you can take all Bluesky data from the relay and host your own app without ads. This is working today and easy to do.
If they started charging for access to the relay you can host your own relay and it will parse all users data for you to use. This is also working today but it's a little expensive.
Something would have to SIGNIFICANTLY change with the protocol for Bluesky to change how the relay interacts with the PDS, that would require such a large infrastructure change there's no reason even questioning further.
The reason you don't see anyone doing it right now is because there's not much incentive to. On Lemmy we're each on our own little "community" but Bluesky is just here's everyones data no matter what when hosting a relay.
-
That's cool!
I'm also a big fan of what Bridgy Fed is capable of doing towards Bluesky - it does show that there is a lot one can actually do with the protocol.
As I read the situation it's complicated. They are not inherently evil—on the contrary, I think they are trying to do good—but they are locked down by the structural chains around them. The whole thing was initiated by Jack Dorsey, and from the onset they wanted to re-create Twitter while solving what they perceived as "moderation challenges", and with the starting point that they were to create the next Twitter, not a decentralized network of services.
Hell, wasn't the original idea that Twitter itself would become part of the network?
When I see Bluesky today I see Twitter 15+ years ago. A lot of optimism and goodwill, but nevertheless a project that is doomed from the start.
Yeah, I have more faith in the Fediverse long term. But we’ve all been through multiple enshittification cycles where everyone abandons a platform and settles on a new one. At least BlueSky is currently open source.
I don’t want to make too much of this but BlueSky is registered as a B-Corps and not a C-corps. For those unfamiliar with US corporate setups, a C-corps is a typical corporation where maximizing shareholder value is the goal. People can disagree on what that means — long term value or short term value, for instance — but ultimately, C-suite executives serve shareholders and only shareholders.
A B-corps (in the U.S.) is a “Public Benefit Corporation” and executives have a duty to serve all stakeholder in the company, from shareholders, to customers, to employees. So, theoretically, BlueSky doesn’t have to be evil.
That being said, it’s not something to rely on. We just saw it with OpenAI, which started as a project at a non-profit and is now a regular ass company that the old non-profit happens to have shares in. A few corporate lawyers can fuck up a good thing very quickly.
-
I thought this was slightly funny.
Mark Zuckerberg is known these days for wearing t-shirts with Latin phrases on them, especially ones where he compares himself to Julius Caesar.
Bluesky made a shirt in the same style, but theirs says "a world without Caesars" in Latin.
I'm going to state an unpopular opinion. Bluesky should have ads, not a personalized ads that track users, but just simple ones at the very top of the feed. Consumers today are too addicted to free services, and companies need to be financially independent so that they can support a quality product.
-
Yeah, they will use their domains, and they can sign in with Bluesky. So it is the same account to a pretty significant degree. What I'm wondering is if the Frontpage user would break if Bsky.app disappeared, or if the user could still sign in as the identity is somehow truly decentralized.
As for domains as user names, I guess ActivityPub could achieve something by allowing users to have verified websites (mastodon style) appear as their user names. I don't really see what would have to change on a protocol level to make this possible.
Identity is decentralized through the protocol so they'd be fine. Bluesky at the end of the day is just app view that sits on top of the protocol so it can disappear and everything will continue operating as long as there's a relay online.
-
Yeah, I have more faith in the Fediverse long term. But we’ve all been through multiple enshittification cycles where everyone abandons a platform and settles on a new one. At least BlueSky is currently open source.
I don’t want to make too much of this but BlueSky is registered as a B-Corps and not a C-corps. For those unfamiliar with US corporate setups, a C-corps is a typical corporation where maximizing shareholder value is the goal. People can disagree on what that means — long term value or short term value, for instance — but ultimately, C-suite executives serve shareholders and only shareholders.
A B-corps (in the U.S.) is a “Public Benefit Corporation” and executives have a duty to serve all stakeholder in the company, from shareholders, to customers, to employees. So, theoretically, BlueSky doesn’t have to be evil.
That being said, it’s not something to rely on. We just saw it with OpenAI, which started as a project at a non-profit and is now a regular ass company that the old non-profit happens to have shares in. A few corporate lawyers can fuck up a good thing very quickly.
I must admit seeing Mozilla get worse and worse has also made me more cynical on behalf of Bluesky. And then there's the issue of moderation - I'm beginning to think that big ethical platforms cannot really exist, as there is no such thing as a perfect place to draw the line with regards to moderation.
Maybe Bluesky would be the most likely to succeed in operating a large online platform in a good way. I have just lost all faith in such platforms.
-
I'm going to state an unpopular opinion. Bluesky should have ads, not a personalized ads that track users, but just simple ones at the very top of the feed. Consumers today are too addicted to free services, and companies need to be financially independent so that they can support a quality product.
Free services? Where?
Free services don't really exist.
-
Identity is decentralized through the protocol so they'd be fine. Bluesky at the end of the day is just app view that sits on top of the protocol so it can disappear and everything will continue operating as long as there's a relay online.
But on frontpage.fyi, if you want to sign up, you have to sign up through Bluesky. They direct you to bsky.app to create your account.
I just don't see how this is a real functional example of a portable account. Maybe it is not supposed to be - if so, is the decentralized nature of accounts demonstrated anywhere in a practical way?
I struggle to understand things I cannot see.
-
Free services? Where?
Free services don't really exist.
Could you suggest alternate wording that succinctly conveys what the commenter obviously meant?
-
Could you suggest alternate wording that succinctly conveys what the commenter obviously meant?
I probably could if I could be bothered to do that.
-
I'm going to state an unpopular opinion. Bluesky should have ads, not a personalized ads that track users, but just simple ones at the very top of the feed. Consumers today are too addicted to free services, and companies need to be financially independent so that they can support a quality product.
Alternatively, no ads and we can support it through donations or anti-oligarchy purchases like this shirt.
Ads open up a pandoras box of monetization of user data/traffic/clicks/links/additional engagement, etc.
It's a dark, dark, dark road, and we've been down it dozens of times with tech giants. It never ends well.
Let's stop having advertising be the way we fund pseudo-free services, and instead just give people options to donate or pay into it some other way. We need to end this reliance on advertising industry for revenue.
-
I'm going to state an unpopular opinion. Bluesky should have ads, not a personalized ads that track users, but just simple ones at the very top of the feed. Consumers today are too addicted to free services, and companies need to be financially independent so that they can support a quality product.
Agreed. Being financially independent can also foster ad investments and lead to a popularity gain
-
I probably could if I could be bothered to do that.
Thanks for letting us know! 🥰
-
I thought this was slightly funny.
Mark Zuckerberg is known these days for wearing t-shirts with Latin phrases on them, especially ones where he compares himself to Julius Caesar.
Bluesky made a shirt in the same style, but theirs says "a world without Caesars" in Latin.
Ofcourse they ain’t making shit from custom domains. Anyone who is interested in connecting a domain to their Bsky account and has the skills or patience to learn how to probably already has a domain bought at another registrar to connect to.
-
Alternatively, no ads and we can support it through donations or anti-oligarchy purchases like this shirt.
Ads open up a pandoras box of monetization of user data/traffic/clicks/links/additional engagement, etc.
It's a dark, dark, dark road, and we've been down it dozens of times with tech giants. It never ends well.
Let's stop having advertising be the way we fund pseudo-free services, and instead just give people options to donate or pay into it some other way. We need to end this reliance on advertising industry for revenue.
Ads are attractive to many users because they have a simple option for universal opt out (adblocking) at the cost of everyone who isn't a Freerider.
