this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2024
20 points (68.5% liked)

Technology

60091 readers
2403 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Blisterexe@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

How exactly does it have the same problem? Could you elaborate on that?

[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'd imagine just basic economics. Businesses exist to make money. Growing a tech company costs money. Which means someone's gotta be pouring a lot of money into it to grow it. People with that kind of money, aren't in the habit of giving money they don't expect to have a return on investment.

Being the best, getting users that don't pay for the service... does not make money. Things people hate make money, Targeted ads, tracking/spying, or paid services you can direct users to make money. If a company has a semi-captive audience... that's when they are pushed to enshittify.

[–] Blisterexe@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

of course, but the way bluesky is built allows people to leave for another service, it is very expensive to setup that other service.

I'd say it's less good from a anti-enshittifications standpoint than the fediverse, but it's much better than twitter

[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I suppose it's the deffinition of "credible" in "credible exit". My understanding is, it's a closed in system... that would allow people to export to another closed system built on the same protocol.

The basically impossible part of a social network, is getting people onto the same network at the same time. It's like a hangout place that's open 24/7. Someone comes in, if nobody's there, they themselves leave. 10 minutes later someone else comes, also see's it empty and leaves. The hard part is getting enough people to stick around long enough to make interesting things to make others want to stay around.

To me the only credible exit... is fediverse style. IE not just that you can leave and take your stuff... but more importantly you can still talk with the people who haven't left yet. Because if we are just talking another walled in instance that you can make, that may as well be a new network.

The thing holding people into twitter, isn't they'd horribly miss their years of old tweets they've made and recieved. They'd miss their old contacts that haven't joined the new network yet. Unless I'm massively misunderstanding the way this works... they aren't opening the door for the new networks to be able to communicate with the old one.

[–] Blisterexe@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 weeks ago

they aren't opening the door for the new networks to be able to communicate with the old one.

they are actually, it's actually better than the fediverse in that sense because you can truly transfer your account, the main issue is that the "relay" part of the system is centralised atm because of how expensive it is to run.