What made everybody move from a corporate social media platform to another corporate social media platform instead of the fediverse?
After all, the Fediverse and Activitypub is much more mature than Bluesky and the copycat AT protocol or Threads and … whatever they use.
Valid question, but Americans in particular are easily swayed by the fact that the corporate ownership is listed as a “Public Benefit Corporation.” Bluesky is a PBC and for most people that’s enough “proof” that they will “be for the public good.”
In that it is set up to “benefit the public good” people just… buy into that, even if the company isn’t actually benefitting the public good.
Look at how long it took for people to wise up that the Susan G. Komen foundation was spending most of its money on their CEOs and ads and very little on actually helping people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_G._Komen_for_the_Cure#Pinkwashing
For the general public, Open Source generally means “difficult to set up and use with bad user interface.”
And yes, the whole self-hosting thing with numerous servers is confusing to people who have never had to step outside of the corporate-dominated internet.
All that is self-evident based on the original reddit exodus to here on Lemmy. The initial exodus lead to tons of people complaining about lack of features on Lemmy with very few people actually stepping up to contribute to the code-base to bring those features to light. They’re just far too used to private company doing all that “for free” (*cough for all your private data cough) and struggle to understand how the different way it is set up means you don’t get all the fancy features from the get-go.
So people saw an option with corporate sponsorship and money behind it, and they leap to that. Also I’m sure Bluesky is investing in advertising their product, which is competing with zero advertising dollars spend on the no-corporate fediverse.
To be fair, people having ideas for features is a valuable contribution in its own right.
Entitlement to them, not so much. But feature suggestions have value even if many of them aren’t practical and many more never get added.
Agreed, but during the exodus it was less “this is a positive feature that we need and I’m willing to be patient” it was more like:
“This feature not existing is why no one will ever use this product! I’m sick of this and going back to reddit!” after being on Lemmy for 10 fucking minutes.
Oddly enough that secondary exodus is probably why this place is so much more positive
I don’t disagree with your points but I think they apply to pretty specific groups. I doubt that the average person knows or cares that Bluesky is a PBC. The reaction of the average person to ‘open source’ is probably, “I have no idea what that is and please for the love of god don’t explain it to me.”
Dude…I have zero clue how to use linux. Which I assume is easier than writting code. You think I’m going to write a program in C++ or whatever language?
Saying the users aren’t developing the program is like saying the hospital patients aren’t willing to be their own doctor.
Users will ALWAYS bring up issues, and if the developers want the platform to grow, they’ll implement upgrades to fix those issues.
Otherwise, you just have a userbase that rejects your platform, goes somewhere else, and a small group on the platform wondering why it’s not growing.
Which is basically the core of this post.
This is weird on multiple levels, Bluesky code is Open Source, it’s federated and no one gives a damn about it being a PBC. It’s mostly about culture why people have gone to Bluesky and Threads
No, AT is open source, not Bluesky