Bluesky is like a mini example of why Communism does not work. Centralization is a drug.
Bluesky is literally an example of enshittification under capitalism. Go away
I would agree. Both Capitalism and Communism are two sides of the centralized coin.
You can not make any commentary on Communism here. You will get down voted even if your criticism was correct. Probably even more so and the reason why this is likely to get downvoted out of hand, as well.
perhaps if u make a coherent or relevant criticism this could be avoided
“Even if your critism was correct…”
Either way, even me touching on the notion is enough to get downvoted. Proof is my post.
This whole comment thread sucks lol. The top reaction literally just says “go away”. Talk about wannabe authoritarian tankies
That is ok. I have never had an issue sharing facts that may trigger some. In fact the only reason it triggers some is it hits somewhere deep.
Not really but go off
What fact is incorrect?
All of it? Your definition of communism is the same as that of the failed dictatorships of the 20th century.
When most people nowadays talk about socialism or communism they talk about a democracy in the workplace and in politics. People who want a strong state that owns everything are a loud minority in leftist circles, as you can see on lemmy. But they’re not as big in real life.
Lemmy & Reddit
Thanks for the reply. I am not understanding. What is the modern definition of communism then? Are you saying it is really about Socialism?
It’s a bit cliche but the first paragraph of wikipedia says it better than I could:
Communism (from Latin communis ‘common, universal’)[1][2] is a sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology within the socialist movement,[1] whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered on common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products in society based on need.[3][4][5] A communist society entails the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state.[7][8][9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
My description above is just a quick way to point to the things that would change in our lived reality (assuming you live in a western democracy). You wouldn’t have to share your house or car or whatever. Just take responsibility for your workplace with colleagues, just like you vote in a democracy.
What exactly a website related to Jack Dorsey has anything to do with Communism lol
Just that good intentions to become decentralized do not work. Not saying capitalism is better as they are two sides of the same centralized coin.
Jack Dorsey hasn’t been around for a long time.
Of course he isn’t, but he was a huge part at the start and the project as a whole still has Dorsey’s ideas all over it.
If they really, really want to fix 99.8% of the problems with hate speech (and many other issues), each user needs to agree to have their real name, home address, email address, and phone number available to the public, in their profile. While what I’ve just said is completely absurd, for almost everyone, it’s the anonymity that empowers people to say the absolute worst things.
Why don’t most people in the checkout line (queue) at the grocery store act the same way they do in a traffic jam on a roadway? Because they’re much more likely to be held personally accountable for their conduct. I wonder how much traffic would change, if our name, address and telephone numbers were required to be posted on all sides of our vehicles?
it’s the anonymity that empowers people to say the absolute worst things.
humans behave badly when they perceive they have social license to do so. anonymity has little to do with it
- exhibit A: public robberies of German Jews in the 1930s
- exhibit B: rwandan genocide
- exhibit C: any public confrontation video shot during the Covid pandemic
your second paragraph makes you sound like Larry Ellison. all you’re arguing for is the extension of the capacity of corporations to constrain and coerce invidiual behaviour, which is gross
I didn’t read what you said but I like it, everyone gets a license plate on bluesky.
Yeah I deleted my Bluesky. All public companies eventually turn to shit because of the shareholders unending greed.
Yous are hyping it a basic verification system which can’t be bought and is handed out for the sake of showing credibility is a good thing
The sake of credibility? What decides that though? Likes? Likes are a big problem imo. It doesn’t really do anything except create echo chambers.
IMO it’s not that blue check equals credibility, but rather it equals that you are who you say you are. This is a good thing particularly when it comes to public figures/officials — not for their sake, mind you, but for the sake of other people who may see a tweet from them. If the checkmark is there, then it’s them. If not, then it’s an impersonator. Right now it’s difficult to tell.
Tl;dr: it doesn’t make what they say real, it just makes them real.
Anyone who is surprised that BlueSky is going down the same path as Twitter (X, not withstanding) belongs on BlueSky.
Even for the internet, this is stupid.
deleted by creator
He’s already sold Twitter/X to xAI; he’s got his arse covered when the bottom eventually falls out.
deleted by creator
Good thing AI can’t fail.
Oh, no doubt - but he’s no longer personally on the hook for Twitter’s $44b debt-loan!
So when it eventually fails, it’ll be a corporate write-off and Elon’s wealth across Tesla and SpaceX are protected.
Wait is that what happened? Investors in his AI company are on the hook for Twitter now?
The rich really are a vampiric class.
Yes, that’s what happened: https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2025/03/28/elon-musk-says-xai-has-purchased-x-formerly-known-as-twitter-for-33-billion/
For what it’s worth, xAI is still a private company - so at least it’s not retail investors on the hook, just venture capital.
Yeah for the masses they will likely always flock to commercialized easy to use social media that reaches critical mass the fastest, so them being willing to move and keep moving is best we can hope for. For rest of us stuff like fediverse will be there to use.
Would it be so bad if it follows the same path as Twitter? If it connects people and organizations in an honest and helpful way for fifteen years?
Or we could all just keep shitting on it while it facilitates social and political movements and enables rapid communication across the planet. Then more than a decade from now when some Ultra-Nazi trillionaire buys it, we can all say “I told you so,” and be real smug about it.
I think a few more people “get it” every time the cycle repeats, but also, a sucker is born every minute.
The fuck did anyone expect?
Then come over to Mastodon…
Bluesky is the new X. After canceling the accounts of Turkish protesters this is the next step for the big money behind Bluesky. That’s why I deleted my account a few days ago.
Exactly, Bluesky has been shitty for a while for lots of reasons. I’m not understanding why this is the line in the sand.
Same. Deleted my account when they started to censor the Turkish protestors. Not that I used the account really but still.
What’s the story with the Turkish protesters?
The way the article describes Turkey and the press is the same thing that’s been happening in the US with the legacy (state funded) media. Hopefully, that’s changing now though.
Bluesky has basically bowed to the Turkish regime: https://www.turkishminute.com/2025/04/17/bluesky-restrict-access-72-account-turk-amid-government-pressure/
How does bluesky make money?
Right now, venture capital investments - same as all tech starts out.
How it’ll monetize to become self-sufficient remains to be seen.
Not same as “all tech starts out”. You’re literally typing on tech stack that didn’t start out like that. Then there’s Masotodon, fediverse, gnome, kde, linux etc. Etc. - literally almost no good software comes out of VC world statically speaking.
same way twitter made money.
🫠
idk man I haven’t seen anyone complaining about it on Bluesky
This is a net positive, nice to have a social media where verification checks are…actually used for verifying the person behind an account
Based on how verification was revoked for some users on Twitter based on their content rather than question of their identity, I’m cautious about this system turning into the status symbol it became on Twitter rather than the verification it claimed to be.
Most of the complaints I’ve seen were about Bluesky’s lack of a formal verification system.
They could never figure out how the current system of checking the username.
But isn’t the domain already doing that?
I saw some small talk about it, and it really just boiled down to domain verification is great for more tech savvy folks, but trying to get larger accounts (think politicians, celebrities, etc) is a lot harder. Having a visual check, using tools within the app or site, is a lot easier.
And personally I like the idea of verification checks as long as it remains a simple means to do just that: verify the owner of the account. Morons like Musk and his ilk always thought it was a clout thing, and for a small minority that was probably the case, but by and large before he ruined it, it was great.
Domains only help you verify organizations and individuals you recognize directly.
This verification system also allows 3rd parties (it’s NOT just bluesky themselves!) to issue attestations that s given account belongs to who they say they are, which would help people like independent journalists, etc.
Idk. Celebrities and Politicians usually have other vetted channels such as their own website or a website of their ogranization representing them. It should be basic journalistic work to see if their social media links link to the account in question or not.
I’m not seeing the advantage of everyone having to do the same vetting process repeatedly.
So it is not given to a centralized authority, that is guided by for profit motives and also does the moderation of its plattform.
Where this can lead was shown with twiiter. The moment the central organization is captured, the central authority will abuse the authentification for its own goals. Then instead of just having to check for the authentification to be reliable you need to question everything that is on that plattform as a whole, which is infinetly more consuming, but also simply impossible.
I feel like domain usernames are still inherently susceptible to phishing, you can get a typo or similar character to try and trick someone that your username is an official one
The problem with domains is that regular people would need to know what a domain is and what verified ownership says about the account in question.
Even then, reading domains is quite difficult, even for people who know about the topic: Humans are Bad at URLs and Fonts Don’t Matter
Excellent post as usual from Troy, but use Bitwarden, not 1Password
That link was a super interesting read!
If they are, and there isn’t anything to display it, how are were to know what’s been vetted and what’s slipped through the cracks? Especially on a new account?
It’s the username so already quite visible.
For example someone at say, NPR, could use a name like @bob.npr.org which is only possible by verifying ownership of the npr.org domain name, so there is no need to vet anything.
That’s great for an organization like NPR which may have the resources to tie its own domain name into Bluesky. For some freelance reporter or otherwise verifiable person, I’m not sure it’s quite so practical.
Domains are dirt cheap.
And tying it to the Bluesky system? Not sure the cost of that (I swear I saw it was a potential monetization they were looking into) but also the time to figure it out isn’t practical for everyone.
I just bought a domain for $2
I do not see anything to be angry or disappointed about?
Verification badge was good, the dumb thing Twitter did was throw it away by letting anyone pay for it.
If the same authority is doing verification that is also doing moderation and both ultimately in a for profit setting, that has conflict of interest.
We dont know how reliable bluesky moderation will stay. We dont know how they will respond to political pressure. We dont know how they will monetize past the growth phase and then could also argue a “service fee” for verification.
In a perfect world none of these would happen, but then everybody could still be on twitter and be fine there.
They have already censored entire accounts at the request of governments.
This is just a web of trust model, aka a decentralized model of verification. This thread is mostly people that haven’t read the details that want to confirm that “Bluesky has been enshittified”.
Nah it was not good. Domain names already do that and are accessible to all at all times with full transparency and decentralization. Bluesky is literally regressing.
Even mastodon’s verification system is better than checkmarks.
“Everyone should be able to setup their own domain and mess with DNS records to get a verified account”
Do you realize how utterly disconnected from reality this sounds?? Technical people that have absolutely not clue on how make good UX for end users is how we got Mastodon in the first place, and why its adoption is abysmal.
You can pay someone to do that for you tho it’s not any different form paying someone to verify you ina centralized way. Its really not that hard.
Even with more complex setups like mastodon servers you already see markets for this. You can get a basic managed instance for yourself for like 15$/mo - that’s basically nothing for anyone who needs to verify themselves as a brand.
This is not a “pay for verification” model. Have you even read the article or anything related to it? It is literally not centralized, it’s web of trust.
domain names do that for people with well known domain names, and verification processes do that for people without
Yup. Need something like EV certs to really verify… And that would only make sense if it’s a “no (non-real) screennames” kind of thing.
Far from perfect, but I think it’s good to have a layer that very visibly shows ‘yes, this is the account you want’.
Domains are a worthwhile addition, but they run into almost the same problem as usernames and handles. Can be made misleading easily - sure, I could often go to the web address and verify it (if they don’t put up a convincing fake site), but that’s much lower visibilty.
Eg, you can probably register nintendo@nintendoamerico and get it by some folks just as easily as registering the Twitter handle. There’s a payment step to get the domain, but that’s about it.
The centralization problem you mention is a good point though. It was a fine system, if you felt like you could trust Twitter as a verifier. Today obviously, one could not. But Bsky seems to at least theoretically have a ‘choose your verification provider’ idea in mind, which would (again theoretically) resolve a lot of that issue.
Preaching to the choir
But anyway anyone who thinks bluesky is actually decentralised will learn sooner rather than later that that’s not the case
Something like this unavoidable.
Example, ted cruz the car mechanic in marfa Texas has just has much right to use blusky as
professional shit bagsenator ted cruz. But hiw do tell the real one from the racid sack of weasels.People use usernames like they always have, and rely on reputation to distinguish themselves from the fakes? Senator ted ceuz makes an account called ‘senatortedcruz’ or if thats taken ‘therealsenatortedcruz’, and the mechanic makes one called ‘tedcruzcars’ or whatever. I dont see how your example is even relevant, because under a checkmark verification system both the mechanic ted cruz, and the senator ted cruz would be valid and deserving of a check mark, so there has to be some other way of distinguishing them anyway.
Its whay the original lawsuit that created checkmarks was about.
What is? How does a checkmark help distinguish between two people that have the same name? The checkmark just shows that the person is who they say they are.
Well the original point was to verify famous people and groups.
It’s easy: cryptographic signatures. If you want to prove your identify, post a public key on something that you need to prove identity for (personal website or something) and sign your posts with the same key. That way everyone can tell the that the same key listed on the website is used for SM posts. Clients can check this automatically and flag anything on your “official” account that’s signed with a different key.
This is much better than a checkmark system, because accounts get hacked and whatnot. It’s really easy to check a cryptographic signature, and it’s really hard to fake. If the website gets hacked, the signature won’t match previous posts.
The main concern here is losing the key. If someone steals your key, generate a new one, and sign it with the old key and the new one. Boom, now everyone can tell you control both keys, while the attacker only controls the old one.
That’s only easy for nerds, and it doesn’t help if the private key is on a device that gets compromised.
Regular people wouldn’t need identity verification, and the keys can be something the user never sees, just like with Signal. The UX can be pretty good here.
But how would a user see that this poat was made with the right crypto key. Maybe some check mark on the Post or some sign.
Ideally, they wouldn’t see anything if everything is good. If there’s an anomaly, flag it with a warning.
But yeah, you could put a checkmark on it, but then it actually means something more than “this person spent money.” Ideally, the checkmark would only show if it’s a publicly verifiable key outside the platform.
Yeah that’s a better system then. We need something that shows the user then post or user is verified. How it works doesn’t matrer to them. Amd the key system would be betterment
mastodon exists
I’ve seen this movie before.
