Rendered at 23:02:37 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
Sabinus 23 hours ago [-]
>We can't advocate that you sign up for a Bluesky account like we do with Mastodon or PeerTube since signing up for Bluesky means loading the registration page's nonfree JavaScript.
This Stallman energy always makes me chuckle. Ever since I read the GNU/Linux copypasta.
I love RMS and his work. But I'd love to run Chimera Linux (BSD userland) just so I could "um actually" about it not being "GNU Linux".
kristianpaul 1 days ago [-]
"Why did we sign up?
Simply put, we have to continue to reach people where they are. Bluesky is a decent choice for us that evades many of the issues of other, more problematic networks. "
verdverm 1 days ago [-]
Has Bluesky turned negative user "growth" around?
Last I checked a few months ago, their metrics were still in a slow decline. Many of the good sites that tracked this have gone offline
eek2121 1 days ago [-]
Based on the stats I've seen, active users did drop a bit from peak, but things have long since stabilized.
I personally use BlueSky and don't use X. Ignoring the Musk factor for a moment, X pushes app use and requires you to log in. It is also filled to the brim with ads and promoted posts. BlueSky doesn't require an app at all (sure, everything I stated could change down the road, but we can't measure things on a "possibly/maybe", we need to compare what the platforms currently do)
What holds Bluesky back is exactly things like these: Big accounts refusing to migrate from X (or use both). The more big folks that migrate, the more folks will switch.
verdverm 1 days ago [-]
> active users did drop a bit from peak
from something like nearly 20M to around 1M, a bit more than a bit, user measurements should be easier, but they are often presented in bias to make things look better than reality (imo)
Sites which track users across many websites (imperfect, but still a useful relative signal) report ~25% drop over the last year. Took a look after asking to see for myself.
> What holds Bluesky back is
(imo)
technical:
- super slow development for the most requested features
- defaulting to public, anyone in the world can read what you write (people want privacy in comms/social)
- control over the protocol in practice
non-technical:
- several own goals by the leadership
- group think in the development ecosystem
- taking Bain Capital money and hiding it from everyone for 10 months (this is the exact opposite of their supposed ethos)
- significant political / activist community, which is giddy to dogpile if you talk about something they do not like (eg. Ai)
I was personally attacked several times in the "atmosphere" for having different views, and by the CTO here on HN, who picked one critique among pros/cons I listed in an attempt to troll me, or get under my skin. (too online like behavior)
This Stallman energy always makes me chuckle. Ever since I read the GNU/Linux copypasta.
https://stallman-copypasta.github.io/
Last I checked a few months ago, their metrics were still in a slow decline. Many of the good sites that tracked this have gone offline
I personally use BlueSky and don't use X. Ignoring the Musk factor for a moment, X pushes app use and requires you to log in. It is also filled to the brim with ads and promoted posts. BlueSky doesn't require an app at all (sure, everything I stated could change down the road, but we can't measure things on a "possibly/maybe", we need to compare what the platforms currently do)
What holds Bluesky back is exactly things like these: Big accounts refusing to migrate from X (or use both). The more big folks that migrate, the more folks will switch.
from something like nearly 20M to around 1M, a bit more than a bit, user measurements should be easier, but they are often presented in bias to make things look better than reality (imo)
Sites which track users across many websites (imperfect, but still a useful relative signal) report ~25% drop over the last year. Took a look after asking to see for myself.
> What holds Bluesky back is
(imo)
technical:
- super slow development for the most requested features
- defaulting to public, anyone in the world can read what you write (people want privacy in comms/social)
- control over the protocol in practice
non-technical:
- several own goals by the leadership
- group think in the development ecosystem
- taking Bain Capital money and hiding it from everyone for 10 months (this is the exact opposite of their supposed ethos)
- significant political / activist community, which is giddy to dogpile if you talk about something they do not like (eg. Ai)
I was personally attacked several times in the "atmosphere" for having different views, and by the CTO here on HN, who picked one critique among pros/cons I listed in an attempt to troll me, or get under my skin. (too online like behavior)