This is a follow-up from my previous thread.
The thread discussed the question of why people tend to choose proprietary microblogging platfroms (i.e. Bluesky or Threads) over the free and open source microblogging platform, Mastodon.
The reasons, summarised by @[email protected] are:
- marketing
- not having to pick the instance when registering
- people who have experienced Mastodon’s hermetic culture discouraging others from joining
- algorithms helping discover people and content to follow
- marketing
and I’m saying that as a firm Mastodon user and believer.
Now that we know why people move to proprietary microblogging platforms, we can also produce methods to counter this.
How do we get “normies” to adopt the Fediverse?
what are you talking about? bluesky isn’t open source, the protocol is, and it reeks of embrace, extend, extinguish by branding itself as an open network
How can it be EEE if it’s their own protocol?
Also there is much more open source from Bluesky: https://github.com/bluesky-social
I don’t actually mean it’s EEE but that whatever they are doing feels similar; besides, with one big server controlled by a corporation in the centre of their ecosystem, they could “defederate” any rising AT-compatible competitor servers out of existence.
They might not now, but don’t ever trust a company to not do this.
What would be the point of putting in the effort to make Bluesky or other ATProtocol apps selfhostable if they didn’t want people to do that? Doesn’t make any sense
The danger (as they can see) are not selfhosters, but larger competitive instances. They don’t allow AT servers of over 10 users and 1500 events a hour. This is clearly targeted to prevent large-scale instances (fediverse style) from being created.
How many bluesky users actually selfhost?
As your link states these are just early access limitations.