So I thought that BlueSky was set up just like Lemmy in that it was fully decentralized into a sort of “terrorist cell” structure that wasn’t focused on profits, but then found out that BlueSky has a CEO. Since this is a business, what makes BlueSky fundamentally different from Twitter or Instagram?

I feel like so long as a social media platform exists through monetization (in some form or another private companies need to make money), we are ultimately replacing one dictator with another.

  • JaymesRS@literature.cafeEnglish
    8·
    14 days ago

    Some of this is more just a generic overview of differences in perspective.

    • It was inspired by this piece by someone who is now on the board that manages it. Yes they have a CEO, but there is a bigger board collaborating on direction decisions
    • They have an explicit policy opposing sharing data for AI usage.
    • It was initially the place for a bunch of frequently targeted minorities and the leadership implemented a bunch of changes that — in combination with a attitude of “block don’t engage” because many people aren’t rational actors — significantly make the space safer for users and less susceptible to dog piling and harassment.
    • Moderation is handled far better that any other large social media platform in my experience.
    • It was created as open source and as an open protocol from the start so in the event of a takeover, it’s relatively easy to spin off a clone (see protocols link).
    • They allow more openness to 3rd party moderation tools in a more integrated manner.
    • They have been open about discussing funding planning in the future and red lines that are unacceptable to them.
    • There is no algorithm in your main feed. You see only what those you follow share. There is a discover feed, but if you hide that it has no impact on your future experience.