oh god how did this get here i am not good with computer

 


 

Background music:
Click here because I can't put an audio widget in the profile

 

The scenes with the shark are usually very intense and disturbing.

 

I use Arch BTW

 

Fun fact: Neo-Nazi dipshit cartoonist Stonetoss is in fact Hans Kristian Graebener of Spring, Texas


DecayWTF
@DecayWTF

The eternal struggle: Wanting to make an At Protocol implementation to undermine all of Bluesky's stupid bullshit vs not wanting to help Jack Dorsey's stupid bullshit gain traction even that much


DecayWTF
@DecayWTF

I do like that At Proto was more or less explicitly designed to concentrate network control in the hands of big players (ie, Bluesky itself) and basically undermine the benefits of federation out of the gate courtesy of being designed in such a way that small PDSes are guaranteed to get fucked as soon as anyone attached to one gets popular. It's honest in a sense.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @DecayWTF's post:

in reply to @DecayWTF's post:

explicitly designed to concentrate network control in the hands of big players (ie, Bluesky itself) and basically undermine the benefits of federation out of the gate

this is particularly weird because I feel like bluesky PBLLC's strategy here is going to be executing a managed exit from running bsky.social as a public or pseudo-public service as soon as they implement a federation story, as evidenced by how small their team is (with, apparently, no dedicated moderation staff) and how slowly they're inviting people

they've done everything but explicitly say that they want the influence of being the standards body for the protocol (plus any money they can figure out a good way to funnel back to the company) without any of the responsibility of running the service

I'm not surprised by this at all and I don't think it's incompatible with rigging the shit to be controlled by large players. Why not be a remora on the side of Facebook or Google and gain the benefits of that monopoly power instead of competing?

yeah, though to be fair, I think there's only two stable solutions for decentralized social media under capitalism; one of them is this decentralization in name only and the other is "everyone runs their own instance, federation is the sole association mechanism, and nobody ever talks with anyone they don't already know"

Well, there's also defining stability. Usenet and IRC are still there in some fashion, just not commonly used by the major percentage of users, but social media per se does not seem to have long term stability baked in in any form anyway... I doubt we'll see any long term durable system until something drastic happens equivalent to the dissolution of the Bell system.

Maybe that's what Dorsey is banking on?

usenet is kind of an example of the latter! every group has its own moderation policy, your feed service entirely determines which newsgroups you get, and almost all of the major ISPs "defederated" with usenet as a whole to avoid having to deal with the liability that was late-2000s alt.binaries.* so now it's eternally doomed to be a weird turbonerd product

Sure but this also goes to what I've said before about internet structure, like there's no reasonable mechanism for whatever hallucinatory Robert Heinlein ideal of "decentralization" people want to see where you can bootstrap an instance of whatever network by yourself and still be a full participant in a modern system. Usenet and IRC sites back in the day were always run by teams or some interest with resources because that's how the internet is built and that's how people work. It turns out right-libertarian nonsense doesn't actually work or make sense anywhere!

yep! it's silly as hell and I almost feel bad for anyone who looks at the past forty years of internet history and thinks that open source or an open protocol is sufficient to overwhelm a billion different systemic incentives for power to flow toward the center of the ecosystem