• Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Bluesky is centralised and funded by VCs. It plays at being decentralised because people can bring their own hardware to the party and plugin to the Bluesky network, but if Bluesky (the company) turns it off, then Bluesky the platform/network ceases to be usable. They also started without allowing federation with their core network, so they can easily disable it again at any time.

    Bluesky is not decentralised in any meaningful way, which means its at risk of the same bullshit that has driven most of us away from reddit, twitter, facebook etc

      • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 month ago

        Sure, but the network itself is still there and still running, and I can still use it (albeit with some disruption).

        The point is though, that as long as it’s not dependent on a single instance, enshittification isn’t the inevitable end state.

        And for me, despite the usability issues of the fediverse instance based method, it’s a better alternative than joining and losing another social media network to gradual enshittification and slack moderation

      • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’s not like my account is that important. I have the same account on different instances so when one has technical problems, I just use the other. Just copied the settings over. Not like I need to be able to go through all my history much.

    • joelghill
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s not centralized, it’s also not a federated network like AP. It’s just a different design.