this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2025
77 points (80.8% liked)
Asklemmy
50995 readers
966 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Bluesky is a for profit venture with a marketing budget it uses to sell the idea the platform is decentralized.
Bluesky is not decentralized and there is no realistic business plan proposed for how to lucratively monetize a truly decentralized network. Bluesky MUST turn a profit, this isn't an inconvenient detail, it is a crisis the company is on the clock to solve like any heavily speculative venture capital funded startup is.
The only way this works is if actual meaningful decentralization is always "on the horizon" for Bluesky as something the for profit company can periodically point to and say "look how close we are!" while never taking meaningful steps closer.
Bluesky silicon valley techbros will point to their cool blogpost about how they set up a hobbyist project on Bluesky outside of the central network and it will remain a pipedream or like the end of a rainbow for 99.9% of us, an impossible promise that flies away as fast away as we chase it.
Bluesky theoretically has the capacity to be decentralized. I am sure people will show up in this comment thread and provide a whole lot of technical specifications about mostly proof of concept features that demonstrate that Bluesky is in some sense technically decentralized. Maybe not anymore? That seems a bit less common these days it seems.
To all of those responses theoretical or prophesized lol I ask in turn -why then has the CEO of Bluesky not ruled out serving ads to users as a way of monetizing the currently unprofitable nascient social network?
This isn't a conversation about details no matter how much people will try to steer it there with an air of expert authority. This is a conversation about values and how we embue them in the structures of our communities.
Bluesky is a for-profit business with investors who will seek a return on their investment. Until proven otherwise we must assume they will monetize similarly to the way every other social media company has so far. The words that people who work for Bluesky are less important than this basic economic reality.
To Explain Specifically
The basic idea of the Bluesky architecture at least how I understand it as it is implemented now is that yes anybody can host their own node to a network in Bluesky, and one can theoretically form alternative private networks between these nodes that are unconnected and thus decentralized from Bluesky the corporation/central servers themselves.
However, to join the main conversation, the main endorsed centralized channels of conversation all the people you want to talk to are on, you have to fully subscribe to the centralized authority of Bluesky and their servers in terms of everything, content moderation, ads, whatever when you participate in that "channel".
This might seem like a small detail, it seems like I just said that Bluesky can be used as a decentralized social network and yes theoretically it can, but the fediverse, mastodon, lemmy, piefed, peertube and other software projects were designed to mitigate the suffocating of the periphery that the network effect creates. Communities here can grow from small pieces floating nearby other larger pieces, it isn't an all or nothing participation in one massive commons controlled by a centralized power that allows small private alternatives to hopelessly wilt in its glare...
So then what about Threads? That is a more interesting question, but even in this case my first question is why is Meta interested fundamentally in the fediverse... and why now? If they had any interest other than a narrow attempt to hedge their bets and jump on the bandwagon so they can say they are doing so, they would have funded tiny little accelerator projects exploring this kind of thing LONG ago.
If you listen to any of this long rant, please ask yourself this question. Why are massive social media companies, with so much cash on hand they might as well be small countries, only putting serious effort into creating decentralized social media technology and building out the infrastructure NOW after the path forward was already blazed? Where were they when the fediverse was still just mostly a cute idea without practical infrastructure built out and standards agreed to?
When talking about whether a specific corporate social media platform is decentralized or not you cannot ignore this context, these foundations had already been laid and fairly well built up by a small rag tag team of developers working almost entirely as volunteers funded on a yearly budget so small it wouldn't cover a single dinner check for the executives of Meta.
An aside... also consider the implications of the massive amount of computation that the architecture of Bluesky is set up to require for moderation of channels with the claims they are making about needing channels to processed by servers to be fed back to nodes in turn. Consider the difference in power/leverage between small nodes and massive communities in a situation where moderation is done by humans doing moderation (with automated screening tools to help maybe, but ultimately human) vs when moderation is done by applying a prohibitively expensive amount of computing power to the raw firehose of conversation. The difference is who gets to moderate public spaces and who doesn't.