I know Mastodon is not as shiny as bluesky for a lot of folk, but it's currently in the process of doing something similar. The underlying protocol is already open source and supported by the The World Wide Web Consortium (https://w3.org/) which is also a non profit.
The fundamental problem I see is that Blue Sky is another monolithic social media platform. You are visualizing everybody on Facebook moving to it. Everybody? Including the bullies that never left Facebook and that, even at its height, Facebook could not eliminate?
Facebook's underlying problem was that it was impossible to intercept all the racist/misogynist posts and shut down all the bullies. As Bluesky grows, it will also reach that level. Mastodon is a federation of numerous separate, mainly small social media nodes, each run by a different person or group. To be part of the federation, they must meet specific standards that do not allow hate speech or advertising.
It has long been a safe place for members of minorities such as LBGTQIA+ people, who are often targets of hate speech. That will not change. Billionaires will not be interested in part because of its basic structure and because it is not designed to make money.
I wish Bluesky and Free Our Feeds all the best. It is a well-meaning attempt. But when it becomes another Facevook, remember that Mastodon will still be here.
Part of the problem with BlueSky and the AT protocol is that it requires huge, monolithic servers for some of its architectural processes. It is not really a distributed social network and so it will always be controlled by a few very well funded organizations, at best.
Mastodon is truly distributed: it's fairly reasonable to host your own nose at home if you are technically inclined, but the downside of that is discoverability and the fact that the rules that protect marginalized communities can make it difficult to find/follow friends who don't understand how the moderation system works (I have two good friends who are on nodes that are blocked from my community node, and they are very "free speech" but don't understand how that enabled the trolls and assholes🙁).
I'm not on any of these, so what the hell do I know, but what I've heard is when you block someone on BlueSky, they actually stay blocked, there isn't some algorithm that keeps shoving them in your face because they paid for it (which I think is something that does happen on FB and Twitter? Correct me if I'm wrong.)
Consequently, the culture on Twitter is "block and ignore rather than engage" and the haters can't get traction. Sometimes tweaks to the platform can make a difference.
BlueSky has the nuclear block, which blocks the user from your feed and blocks third parties from seeing their part of the conversation with you as well. It's pretty thorough.
Also useful, but somewhat overlooked, is the ability to detach messages from quote-replies, which helps prevent the viral spread of a message for quote-dunking.
Yeah, I don't think we need to assume that "infested with assholes" is the natural end-state for all social media platforms. Rules make a difference, culture and norms also make a difference.
I think we should keep Twitter around, hang a sign over it that says "Where you go for the back-n-forth with morons." Keep other platforms for useful, intelligent discussion.
Unsurprisingly, the ActivityPub/Mastodon community is highly suspicious of this initiative. I think they have reason to be cynical, too. I myself think that ego is the heaviest driver of the major FreeOurFeed players, which isn't to say that I think it's bad, just not altruistic they way the boosters are selling it as. I myself am skeptical, but do not share the cynicism of the ActivityPub userbase. I don't think FreeOurFeeds will accomplish anything long-term, which is disappointing, but that's not how money, power, and government work on this shitty timeline.
I've been following this, it seems really great if it pans out, and - I know she's a billionaire and therefore it's somewhat contrary to the mission statement, but could anyone get the attention of Mackenzie Scott regarding this? I feel like she'd be onboard?
Maybe I'm dredging up a painful memory, but Kamala Harris did raise over a billion dollars, most of it from small donors. What I'm saying is the money's out there if people can be inspired and brought together, who needs billionaires?
Drop the safe space mindset. It does not belong in the USA where we have 1A rights.
And in terms of media ownership resulting in bias... the entire MSM is Wall Street owned and controlled and Wall Street kowtows to the billionaires. And you had no problem with Bezos owning the NYT. You have no problem with Laurene Powell Jobs owning The Atlantic.
Only when the billionaire fails to carry your liberal water do you oppose them.
I realise others in the comments will tell me not to engage but I'm glutton for punishment, what can I say.
Anyway, seems like you're bringing the whole safe space thing into a conversation where it doesn't really belong. It's not about "safe spaces" when people want their digital public squares to not be filled with bots and ads because they want to have productive conversations with real people, or just share memes with real people, whatever. Almost no one is ardently arguing that their particular set of views should be free from ridicule or criticism which is really what's at the heart of the whole disingenuous "safe space" mindset you're talking about. I mean it'd be great if people could also enjoy their digital public squares without someone screaming at them to unalive themselves for no reason other than that person woke up that morning and chose to be a public menace, but that's not the core of the argument against the enshittification of social media these days. You seem to be positioning it as the core thing in this discussion, but you're wrong, and it's got nothing to do with free speech or politics or any of that.
I know Mastodon is not as shiny as bluesky for a lot of folk, but it's currently in the process of doing something similar. The underlying protocol is already open source and supported by the The World Wide Web Consortium (https://w3.org/) which is also a non profit.
https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2025/01/the-people-should-own-the-town-square/
The fundamental problem I see is that Blue Sky is another monolithic social media platform. You are visualizing everybody on Facebook moving to it. Everybody? Including the bullies that never left Facebook and that, even at its height, Facebook could not eliminate?
Facebook's underlying problem was that it was impossible to intercept all the racist/misogynist posts and shut down all the bullies. As Bluesky grows, it will also reach that level. Mastodon is a federation of numerous separate, mainly small social media nodes, each run by a different person or group. To be part of the federation, they must meet specific standards that do not allow hate speech or advertising.
It has long been a safe place for members of minorities such as LBGTQIA+ people, who are often targets of hate speech. That will not change. Billionaires will not be interested in part because of its basic structure and because it is not designed to make money.
I wish Bluesky and Free Our Feeds all the best. It is a well-meaning attempt. But when it becomes another Facevook, remember that Mastodon will still be here.
Part of the problem with BlueSky and the AT protocol is that it requires huge, monolithic servers for some of its architectural processes. It is not really a distributed social network and so it will always be controlled by a few very well funded organizations, at best.
Mastodon is truly distributed: it's fairly reasonable to host your own nose at home if you are technically inclined, but the downside of that is discoverability and the fact that the rules that protect marginalized communities can make it difficult to find/follow friends who don't understand how the moderation system works (I have two good friends who are on nodes that are blocked from my community node, and they are very "free speech" but don't understand how that enabled the trolls and assholes🙁).
What are the circumstances under which you think people will notice that Mastodon is there and adopt it en masse?
I'm not on any of these, so what the hell do I know, but what I've heard is when you block someone on BlueSky, they actually stay blocked, there isn't some algorithm that keeps shoving them in your face because they paid for it (which I think is something that does happen on FB and Twitter? Correct me if I'm wrong.)
Consequently, the culture on Twitter is "block and ignore rather than engage" and the haters can't get traction. Sometimes tweaks to the platform can make a difference.
BlueSky has the nuclear block, which blocks the user from your feed and blocks third parties from seeing their part of the conversation with you as well. It's pretty thorough.
Also useful, but somewhat overlooked, is the ability to detach messages from quote-replies, which helps prevent the viral spread of a message for quote-dunking.
Yeah, I don't think we need to assume that "infested with assholes" is the natural end-state for all social media platforms. Rules make a difference, culture and norms also make a difference.
I think we should keep Twitter around, hang a sign over it that says "Where you go for the back-n-forth with morons." Keep other platforms for useful, intelligent discussion.
Unsurprisingly, the ActivityPub/Mastodon community is highly suspicious of this initiative. I think they have reason to be cynical, too. I myself think that ego is the heaviest driver of the major FreeOurFeed players, which isn't to say that I think it's bad, just not altruistic they way the boosters are selling it as. I myself am skeptical, but do not share the cynicism of the ActivityPub userbase. I don't think FreeOurFeeds will accomplish anything long-term, which is disappointing, but that's not how money, power, and government work on this shitty timeline.
I've been following this, it seems really great if it pans out, and - I know she's a billionaire and therefore it's somewhat contrary to the mission statement, but could anyone get the attention of Mackenzie Scott regarding this? I feel like she'd be onboard?
Maybe I'm dredging up a painful memory, but Kamala Harris did raise over a billion dollars, most of it from small donors. What I'm saying is the money's out there if people can be inspired and brought together, who needs billionaires?
Harris was bankrolled by 83 billionaires.
Frankers on Crankers again.
Frank-n-Crank
Or is it Frank-n-Crank's Monster? People can be so pedantic about these things.
Drop the safe space mindset. It does not belong in the USA where we have 1A rights.
And in terms of media ownership resulting in bias... the entire MSM is Wall Street owned and controlled and Wall Street kowtows to the billionaires. And you had no problem with Bezos owning the NYT. You have no problem with Laurene Powell Jobs owning The Atlantic.
Only when the billionaire fails to carry your liberal water do you oppose them.
Talk about partisan hypocrisy.
Which reminds me, when does Substack get a block option?
Run to your safe space Stevie. Make sure there are tissue, crying pillows and soft punching bags.
Waste. Of. Time.
We realize you like to suck a different set of dicks, no need to belabor the point.
Naw. I just like to irritate dicks for being wrong.
Bold to admit to either self- or child abuse so openly, but please, tell us more about how you irritate Wrong Dick.
I realise others in the comments will tell me not to engage but I'm glutton for punishment, what can I say.
Anyway, seems like you're bringing the whole safe space thing into a conversation where it doesn't really belong. It's not about "safe spaces" when people want their digital public squares to not be filled with bots and ads because they want to have productive conversations with real people, or just share memes with real people, whatever. Almost no one is ardently arguing that their particular set of views should be free from ridicule or criticism which is really what's at the heart of the whole disingenuous "safe space" mindset you're talking about. I mean it'd be great if people could also enjoy their digital public squares without someone screaming at them to unalive themselves for no reason other than that person woke up that morning and chose to be a public menace, but that's not the core of the argument against the enshittification of social media these days. You seem to be positioning it as the core thing in this discussion, but you're wrong, and it's got nothing to do with free speech or politics or any of that.