this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
133 points (98.5% liked)

Fediverse

37183 readers
385 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

So, if you're online poisoned like me, you may have noticed that Bluesky CEO Jay Graber has been having sort of a slow motion, low-key public meltdown for the past several weeks. Most recently, in this interaction with a user.
@jcsalterego.bsky.social on Bluesky: "(bluesky user bursts into Waffle House) OH SO YOU HATE PANCAKES??" @jay.bsky.team quotes posts this with: "Too real. We're going to try to fix this. Social media doesn't have to be this way." @antioccident.bsky.social replies to jay asking "have y'all banned Jesse Singal yet or" and Jay responds with "WAFFLES"
[…]
Even with practical technical decentralization, the vast majority of Bluesky users are on, well, Bluesky. Bluesky was never really packaged as something that was relatively easy for someone to spin up on their own servers; the network has been historically extremely centralized, and only small minorities of users have broken off.

AT Proto decentralization doesn't exist as a practical reality, and if it ever does it won't be for years. Most of the work driving effective decentralization is being done by third parties, who have limited guarantees about future compatibility with possible breaking changes on Bluesky's end.

Bluesky inc isn't really making 'a protocol', they're making Bluesky, the monolithic (to within a rounding error) social network that they operate.

I do genuinely believe that the Bluesky team set off from the start to create a decentralized protocol, but unfortunately for them they ended up running a social network. And at this point, AT Proto has become essentially a sort of ideological vaporware; a way for Jay Graber et al to run a social media platform while claiming they don't run a social media platform.

This is, of course, just another iteration of the Silicon Valley monoproduct: power without accountability. The tech industry elite are very much like Gilded Age railroad barons – buying up whole towns, breaking up strikes, imposing top-down economic policy on whole sectors – except all the while they claim that they are just technology enthusiasts playing with their little trains.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

If you're the kind of person who wants a particular person banned, you probably want to be on the kind of instance that would ban them, and then from your perspective, they'd be banned, so you'd never have to see their posts. It still being possible to interact with them from other instances isn't any more of a big deal than it being possible to interact with them on an entirely different website after they're banned from regular social media - no one can ban someone from the whole Internet.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

Yes. On Bluesky, they could be individually muted or blocked. You can make and share blocklists, make your own custom feeds that exclude such posters, or even create your own moderation service that removes (or blurs, ...) posts for your subscribers. Obviously, that is not satisfactory for some people.