424 sats \ 2 replies \ @phygit 8 May

Interesting read, but isn't the word "scam" a bit exaggerated?

It's one thing to say that Bluesky is not open and decentralized enough (for now), it's another to claim it's a fraud. And if you do, you may as well call "scam" most apps and services launched on the Net for 20 years.

Including bitcoin

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @legxxi 8 May

Well they want to lure developers to build on their platform, but it's not going to be decentralized at all, that's clear. There's a company behind this. With $$$ in mind.

It's misleading to call it a protocol.

300 sats \ 0 replies \ @Chep 8 May

Agreed. TL;DR Bluesky claimed to be an open network with a protocol and users wouldn't lose their identity, but these claims are false. Bluesky is a company and the protocol is controlled by them, making it unlikely that a serious competitor will step in. The identity system is not decentralized and the network is not truly open as posts are still routed through the Bluesky central server and users have no control of how their posts are handled.

187 sats \ 0 replies \ @kenn_b 8 May

Open door, so I walk inside Close my eyes, find my place to hide And I shake as I take it in Let the show begin

Open my eyes Just to have them close again Well on my way But on my way to where I've been It swallows me As it takes me in its fog I twist away As I give this world a nod

The way I read it, bluesky is kind of in an "introduction" phase. They also make the possibility to be invited rare (in their mind rare=desirable like some kind of trading card game for middleschoolers). Thus I expect the thing to still make 180 degree changes when it does the real market entry - including fundamental architecture. It's a product not a protocol after all.

Interesting read. My take I’m not surprised i believe Bluesky wants to monetize so the incentives makes sense to take this approach

Fiatjaf bites a giving hand.

264 sats \ 1 replies \ @0fje0 8 May

That's one way of looking at it. And, admittedly, my first thought as well.

Or you could see it as the "giving hand" attempting to hedge its bets when the donation was made in the first place.

Either way, does it invalidate any of what @fiatjaf pointed out? (Serious question, btw.)

Maybe it's just part of a healthy debate.

I think no. It doesn't. But to me it sounds like nitpicking.


Just outbuild, no need to outshame.

it's tool. A corporate tool. Don't expect more than that.

Fortunately we have Nostr, no need to lose attention too much by looking at what the private sector does.