• @finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    14
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Problem is it absolutely will turn when the Bluesky owners Jay Graber and Jack Dorsey decide it’s time to cash in. The project started out as a way to start decentralizing twitter, but they never actually accomplished that goal.

    • Victor
      link
      fedilink
      English
      23 months ago

      Why is it a problem? If a tool is good now, I’ll use it now.

      I don’t stop myself from buying a new axe just because it’ll break eventually, you know what I mean?

      Although obviously if there was an axe that never would break, I’d buy that! But maybe there are trade-offs. Maybe the never-breaking axe has a complicated handle or something. I don’t know, I’m trying my best with the axe analogy to describe Bluesky vs Mastodon. 😅 Hopefully it’s clear enough!

      • @finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        43 months ago

        We can avoid it ever becoming shit when a wannabe dictator buys it if we make it impossible to sell: like mastodon and other federated options.

        • Victor
          link
          fedilink
          English
          13 months ago

          Right, that’s the sure-fire way. But if a platform is better in some way than another, I’m inclined to use it, as long as it’s morally just to do so.

          I like Bluesky because it’s more like Twitter was. But I like Mastodon because of how liberated it is. So I’ll use both, probably, until Bluesky turns to shit (or doesn’t).

      • @naught101@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        33 months ago

        It’s a problem for the same reason twitter dying sucks… The network effect is important, and maintaining yours during a slow, piecemeal mass migration is hard. Which is why I’m sticking with mastodon now, despite more of my relevant network being on BS.