Mississippi, Bluesky, Blacksky, the ATmosphere, Mastodon, and the Fediverse
-
Mississippi, Bluesky, Blacksky, the ATmosphere, Mastodon, and the Fediverse
New on The Nexus of Privacy!
As well as a summary of the situation (both in the ATmosphere and the Fediverse) and links to a bunch of interesting discussions, there's also a discussion of just why age verification laws are so bad.
-
Mississippi, Bluesky, Blacksky, the ATmosphere, Mastodon, and the Fediverse
New on The Nexus of Privacy!
As well as a summary of the situation (both in the ATmosphere and the Fediverse) and links to a bunch of interesting discussions, there's also a discussion of just why age verification laws are so bad.
And a companion piece: Can we please stop arguing about whether Bluesky is decentralized?
https://privacy.thenexus.today/can-we-please-stop-arguing-about-whether-bluesky-is-decentralized/
"People who saw Bluesky as centralized nine months ago still see Bluesky as centralized. People who saw Bluesky as decentralized (or decentralizing) nine months ago still see Bluesky as decentralized (or decentralizing). Nobody's changing their minds in response to new information. It's basically the same discussions rehashed again and again.
One thing that's been really striking to me in this latest iteration of this interminable discourse is that so many people in the Fediverse present the fact that 99.99% of Bluesky users are still using infrastructrure run by Bluesky PBC as if it's a gotcha that people advocating for Bluesky and the ATmosphere aren't aware of.
No, actually, ATmosphere developers I talk to are very very aware of these limitations. They just prefer to invest their time and energy in working to improve the situation rather than arguing about the semantics of "decentralization."
That sure seems like a good approach to me.
So can we please stop arguing about this already?"
-
And a companion piece: Can we please stop arguing about whether Bluesky is decentralized?
https://privacy.thenexus.today/can-we-please-stop-arguing-about-whether-bluesky-is-decentralized/
"People who saw Bluesky as centralized nine months ago still see Bluesky as centralized. People who saw Bluesky as decentralized (or decentralizing) nine months ago still see Bluesky as decentralized (or decentralizing). Nobody's changing their minds in response to new information. It's basically the same discussions rehashed again and again.
One thing that's been really striking to me in this latest iteration of this interminable discourse is that so many people in the Fediverse present the fact that 99.99% of Bluesky users are still using infrastructrure run by Bluesky PBC as if it's a gotcha that people advocating for Bluesky and the ATmosphere aren't aware of.
No, actually, ATmosphere developers I talk to are very very aware of these limitations. They just prefer to invest their time and energy in working to improve the situation rather than arguing about the semantics of "decentralization."
That sure seems like a good approach to me.
So can we please stop arguing about this already?"
"They just prefer to invest their time and energy in working to improve the situation..."
OK @thenexusofprivacy working from the assumption that this post isn't some public form of rhetorical self gratification, the obvious question arises:
Since 9 months was not sufficient to "fix" the "situation", why not?
Is the "situation" synonymous with relinquishing corporate control over the central choke-point in the social network's implementation?
There are other places people go to hear "2 weeks bruah... I promise"
-
Mississippi, Bluesky, Blacksky, the ATmosphere, Mastodon, and the Fediverse
New on The Nexus of Privacy!
As well as a summary of the situation (both in the ATmosphere and the Fediverse) and links to a bunch of interesting discussions, there's also a discussion of just why age verification laws are so bad.
@thenexusofprivacy @fediversenews How would the laws apply if individuals setup their own server for just themselves? I assume it would be the same for those utilizing VPNs.
I vaguely remember some fediverse folks discussing the potential of peer-to-peer architecture for next gen decentralized social media.
-
@thenexusofprivacy @fediversenews How would the laws apply if individuals setup their own server for just themselves? I assume it would be the same for those utilizing VPNs.
I vaguely remember some fediverse folks discussing the potential of peer-to-peer architecture for next gen decentralized social media.
It's a very good question. I'm not a lawyer and haven't seen any legal analysis yet. The law is written in terms of users registering accounts, so (as a non-lawyer) it's possible that it might not apply to a single-user instance.
-
And a companion piece: Can we please stop arguing about whether Bluesky is decentralized?
https://privacy.thenexus.today/can-we-please-stop-arguing-about-whether-bluesky-is-decentralized/
"People who saw Bluesky as centralized nine months ago still see Bluesky as centralized. People who saw Bluesky as decentralized (or decentralizing) nine months ago still see Bluesky as decentralized (or decentralizing). Nobody's changing their minds in response to new information. It's basically the same discussions rehashed again and again.
One thing that's been really striking to me in this latest iteration of this interminable discourse is that so many people in the Fediverse present the fact that 99.99% of Bluesky users are still using infrastructrure run by Bluesky PBC as if it's a gotcha that people advocating for Bluesky and the ATmosphere aren't aware of.
No, actually, ATmosphere developers I talk to are very very aware of these limitations. They just prefer to invest their time and energy in working to improve the situation rather than arguing about the semantics of "decentralization."
That sure seems like a good approach to me.
So can we please stop arguing about this already?"
-
@thenexusofprivacy It seems Bluesky is centralized; the ATmosphere is not. <ducks>
@zillion no need to duck, I really don't have any problem with people saying they think Bluesky is centralized -- like I say it comes down to how people define centralized. I just don't want to argue about it!
-
"They just prefer to invest their time and energy in working to improve the situation..."
OK @thenexusofprivacy working from the assumption that this post isn't some public form of rhetorical self gratification, the obvious question arises:
Since 9 months was not sufficient to "fix" the "situation", why not?
Is the "situation" synonymous with relinquishing corporate control over the central choke-point in the social network's implementation?
There are other places people go to hear "2 weeks bruah... I promise"
Since 9 months was not sufficient to "fix" the "situation", why not?
Because it's hard! Nobody's saying "2 weeks", they're (correctly) saying "wow there's a lot to do here, here's a next step."
-
Since 9 months was not sufficient to "fix" the "situation", why not?
Because it's hard! Nobody's saying "2 weeks", they're (correctly) saying "wow there's a lot to do here, here's a next step."
Bullshit @thenexusofprivacy
It's impossible, a manager woln't fix that which his livelyhood depends upon remaining broken. Go blow smoke up someone else's ass you pearl clutching PR douchbag.
-
T thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchange shared this topic
