If someone can spin up a replacement, even at great cost, it means that if and when the service gets bad in the main instance people can create a different big replacement. Whatever made the original viable remains in place, so the incentives should be the same.
That assumes that the biggest player keeps playing by the established rules even after deteriorating otherwise. But if the biggest player controls virtually the entire market, they can change the rules at will.
For instance, let’s say BlueSky suddenly switches to a new protocol, which happens to be proprietary (or they extend AT in a proprietary manner that breaks compatibility). Can you still offer a competing AT service? Sure. But the 90+ % of users who are on BlueSky aren’t going to drop everything to switch to your service, which has virtually no users or content, just because you use the protocol BlueSky used to use. Most users are there for the content, not because of the technical implementation.
That’s the point of the whole federalized service thing: To keep one single party from being able to dictate terms to everyone. But just like in any market, that relies upon no one having an overwhelming market share. Right now, BlueSky has an overwhelming market share. They currently aren’t abusing it but they have the power to do so.
That makes no sense. How is that any different from forking out of Fedi apps? This has happened a ton of times.
Look, I don’t mean to dump specifically on you, but I do hate this slippery slope fallacy crap, and you hear it a ton in these circles. What if Bluesky decides to defederate from itself or stop using an open protocol? Well then that’s bad. Also it hasn’t happened, there’s no indication that will happen and it would make no sense for it to happen considering Bluesky made AT willingly and could have just… not done that in the first place.
I mean, what if Mastodon.social defederates and stops using AP? What then? Huh? Well, nothing because it hasn’t happened it’s unlikely to happen and if it did the rest of the space would have to reconfigure around it.
I swear, we need to stop this. The small fish infighting is such a great way to keep the big fish in place. If you want to get depressed at the ability of more open alternatives to be functional in general, the insane fact that only BS managed to sorta capitalize on Twitter and then Twitter managed to keep itself in place and recover is a massive failure. We should all be doing a lot of soul-searching about how badly we suck at organizing and pushing a cohesive message because man, did they try hard to fail and we just wouldn’t let them.
One the one hand you argue that because they haven’t enshittified yet, they will never do so in the future. That doesn’t square with how any platform ever has worked out, especially when VC money is involved. Sure, BS is run by a benefit corporation but even they have to turn a profit at some point. Besides, the best of intentions can be quickly diluted or even forgotten when a leadership change happens.
You also argue that if BS defederates from everyone, the rest of the ecosystem can just go on without them. The problem there is that in that case, the rest of the ecosystem has little reason to do so. Bluesky minus 99% of its users and content has very little going for it; the network effect is huge in social media. The third-party AT services would go from being part of Twitter’s greatest rival to being Mastodon but with fewer users. Also, BS would have little to lose in that scenario; virtually all users and content would still be there. In comparison, if BS only had a 60% market share, defederating would lose them enough content and activity to be a very unappealing prospect.
Also, the argument you’re going against is not that BS is inherently bad, it’s that the AT market is currently centralized to a sufficient degree that the benefits of federalization can’t fully come to play. The argument is not “fewer people should use Bluesky”, it’s “more people on Bluesky should be using third-party AT providers”. There’s a subtle difference here: The argument people are actually making isn’t aiming to diminish the AT ecosystem, it’s aiming to make it more resistant to unilateral enshittification.
No, that’s not what I’m arguing. We’ve gone from slippery slopes to straw men, apparently, much as I hate calling out the play.
I’m not arguing that because they haven’t enshittified they won’t enshittify. I’m arguing that because they haven’t enshittified, they haven’t enshittified and there is no indication to make it more or less likely that they will, how or when.
Big difference. You are implying, if not arguing, that there is a slippery slope towards a specific hypothetical scenario, but there’s no indication of it and even in that hypothetical there is no indication that the situation would be any worse than in the alternative you present. It’s just fallacious through and through. I don’t need to argue that they won’t ever enshittify for that to be a bad argument.
And by the way, you keep doing it. You immediately go back to a scenario in which BS defederates from itself and from a protocol they built, designed and presented as a USP in the first place. It remains obviously fallacious. I have no need to argue about a version of reality you made up, or to defend the inexistent version of players or events playing out solely in your head.
That last paragraph is a lot more valuable, though, but it is just restating the point I already addressed earlier. My point is that how many people are using third-party AT providers is entirely irrelevant, just like the number of fedi people not on mastodon.social is entirely irrelevant. The point of having a standing protocol is that people could move in the future. If BS did make very fundamentally bad choices people could conceivably move over then. The benefits of decentralization don’t exist until you have to move instances. There is nothing in your interaction with the service that is better because it is decentralized. In fact, decentralization makes a number of things harder to implement. But the presence of the possibility of defederation or migration fundamentally changes how service and instance owners can act by removing a BIG chunk of their leverage over the userbase’s data, relationships and content.
People here don’t like to hear it, but in that sense AT is actually more robust than AP. Account migration including follows and messages is a major part of that flexibility and it impacts that stickiness more than whatever the current distribution of users happens to be in a scenario where nobody is doing anything particularly shitty.
I would argue that even that flexibility is overstated. Once thing that we learned the hard way when people got weird about federating with Threads is that being decentralized does not mean you’re endlessly resilient and forks or disagreements that split the collective management down the middle can do really bad damage.
While we’re calling out improper arguments I could accuse you of using a motte and bailey argument there as you’ve gone from “there’s no indication that will happen” to “there is no indication to make it more or less likely that they will”. But I think this is more a case of communication being inherently imperfect, in both directions.
I didn’t say that they will inevitably enshittify, just that this has been the case with all mass-user services I am aware of, especially ones with VC funding behind them. Investors generally don’t throw big money at a company unless they expect some kind of ROI in the future. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that BS has a similar potential for enshittification as other social media services and to want it to be robust against that.
It makes sense to focus on an unhappy path here as the whole point of federated social media is to prevent or counteract that; the happy path is that they offer a great platform forever and federation barely matters. The AT protocol can provide a safeguard against certain types of platform misbehavior but not if one single service controls so much of the market that in the event of a split any other service immediately becomes irrelevant.
By the way, I chose the scenario I chose because I do consider it a likely path towards enshittification. If they need to monetize their user base because the investors want their money back, alternative AT services can break that monetization – e.g. if they were to aggressively push ads, other services could offer an ad-free experience and siphon off users, especially with AT’s account portability feature. That’s nice for the users but not so nice for the company. So how can they make the investors happy? By keeping people from fleeing, such as by breaking federation – or just account portability.
Of course, instead of a hard break, they could just pull a Kerberos and simply add important features to their implementation of AT that other services don’t get. Either way, the point is that any overwhelmingly large actor can undermine a supposedly open system. They don’t have to, but hey can.
That’s a failure state of the system itself; it can’t properly bring its strengths to bear. And that’s precisely the issue here. AT is in theory more robust than AP but in practice features like account portability rely on everybody playing by the rules. If BS control 99% of the AT market, they can choose to ignore the rules without significant repercussions.
While being overly picky about federation can harm a platform, so can putting all eggs in one basket.
No, I have not backpedalled my argument. You can’t claim I said a thing I didn’t say and then accuse me of changing my position for restating my point. I mean, you can, but it’s some bullshit and it’s not gonna fly. That’s why I don’t like calling out these things in public, it really brings the Google out of people.
I claimed there is no indication that it will happen the first time, you claimed that I was saying it would definitely not happen and I restated that no, what I said is there was no indication that it would go one way or the other. So no, there is no indication that it will happen.
You can keep pushing your hypothetical all you want, it won’t get any or more likely. You’ve decided to make up that scenario in reverse, because you have chosen a football team to support and are now imagining ways to justify that selection. The exact same scenario could be played out in reverse. If you’re building a doomsday scenario out of whole cloth you can get as convoluted as you want and say it seems likely to you. I could poke holes on it, and there are plenty to be poked, but that’d require accepting the premise and arguing about the hypothetical instead of reality. That’s why it’s a frequent fallacious argument in the first place. So we’re not doing that.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the argument you’re doing mental gymnastics to bypass is still that interoperability and decentralization only actualize when people need to move. The amount of concentration prior to people moving is, and remains, irrelevant, at least in relation to the importance of the feature existing in the first place.
I generally agree, except in the case of Bluesky specifically.
They have enough control of their protocol and platform to effectively be proprietary. The “decentralized” idea there is not much more than a marketing gimmick.
I mean, if you’re just gonna say the quiet part out loud… yeah, people just don’t like that Bluesky implemented a different version of AP in a corporate site and are desperately seeking ways to differentiate it and find exceptions to the rule because the whole “everything should be interoperable with everything” thing was always kinda bullshit and what people meant was “everybody should be in our playground where everything is interoperable among the things we like inside our playground”.
I find both of those versions of interoperability more appealing than everything being siloed and consolidated, but it was a disappointment to come to that realization. Which, granted, happened with the whole Threads federation debacle. Fedi fans going through that loop a second time and being impotently angry at Bluesky from a distance is relatively benign in comparison, except for the part where both should have integrated much more closely by now and both are being harmed to at least some extent by being slow at moving that forward.
I just would have liked for everybody involved to have been less dumb about this and maybe to have killed Twitter instead of letting its ambling zombie eat their lunch all over again. But here we are.
the insane fact that only BS managed to sorta capitalize on Twitter and then Twitter managed to keep itself in place and recover is a massive failure.
The fact that you ignore the massive amount of investor money they spend on keeping that place, shows how little you know about any of this.
It’s straight up disingenuous to claim fediverse failed to capitalize on anything because it’s not meant to replace the giant echo chambers funded by billionaires. It tries to accommodate what it can. People are free to try it and move on if that’s not their cup of tea. It’s meant to be a place for small communities to have their own place on the internet without being brigaded by bunch of malicious anonymous trolls. Unlike you, other people, with mostly marginalized voices think very highly of it.
You don’t have to accept it or you can stay perpetually mad at why everyone isn’t using your favorite protocol or platform. I think there’s enough room for all of us to be mad at some thing on the internet.
I am not ignoring that. Why would you assume I’m ignoring that?
I am aware of that and I am, look at me in the eye, 100% meaning what I’m saying.
There is by any and all framings around this case, zero reason anybody should be on Twitter anymore. It was a perfect death spiral. And there were competitors coming at it ranging from a TON of funding and closed ecosystems (hi there, Threads, someone remembered you exist) to fully open standards.
Also, spare me the back strain of limboing under the increasingly low bar. I was there on Masto when the Twitter implosion happened and nobody was out there lowering expectations and saying it was disingenuous or unrealistic to expect fedi would capitalize. It was a feeding frenzy and a massive party and people were drawing up plans for how to host 200 million people because scalability was a concern. And then that same hype came to Threads theoretically having hundreds of millions of people who happened to have an Instagram account, and then to Bluesky actually building some stable userbase in the old school web 2.0 startup fashion.
And they all stalled. It is not disingenuous to observe that. It is revisionist to pretend that people expected them, and Masto specifically to stall. That was not what happened. Until people started infighting about whether the tone of the place supported activists or minorities or whether federating with Threads was convenient or starting a blood feud with Bluesky because that’s more fun than losing a fight to Twitter, I suppose.
I hate the navel gazing and the excuses and the patting oneself in the back for a good failure. I am so tired of people choosing ineffectual self-righteousness over genuine impact.
Not as tired as I am of normies refusing to drop their bad online habits, for the record. Twitter continuing to exist at all, even if no competition was available, would be a travesty. But the self-serving arguments about why it’s cool for fedi to be unpopular or the endless purity tests in the relationships with Threads and Bluesky are exhausting and depressing as hell.
That assumes that the biggest player keeps playing by the established rules even after deteriorating otherwise. But if the biggest player controls virtually the entire market, they can change the rules at will.
For instance, let’s say BlueSky suddenly switches to a new protocol, which happens to be proprietary (or they extend AT in a proprietary manner that breaks compatibility). Can you still offer a competing AT service? Sure. But the 90+ % of users who are on BlueSky aren’t going to drop everything to switch to your service, which has virtually no users or content, just because you use the protocol BlueSky used to use. Most users are there for the content, not because of the technical implementation.
That’s the point of the whole federalized service thing: To keep one single party from being able to dictate terms to everyone. But just like in any market, that relies upon no one having an overwhelming market share. Right now, BlueSky has an overwhelming market share. They currently aren’t abusing it but they have the power to do so.
That makes no sense. How is that any different from forking out of Fedi apps? This has happened a ton of times.
Look, I don’t mean to dump specifically on you, but I do hate this slippery slope fallacy crap, and you hear it a ton in these circles. What if Bluesky decides to defederate from itself or stop using an open protocol? Well then that’s bad. Also it hasn’t happened, there’s no indication that will happen and it would make no sense for it to happen considering Bluesky made AT willingly and could have just… not done that in the first place.
I mean, what if Mastodon.social defederates and stops using AP? What then? Huh? Well, nothing because it hasn’t happened it’s unlikely to happen and if it did the rest of the space would have to reconfigure around it.
I swear, we need to stop this. The small fish infighting is such a great way to keep the big fish in place. If you want to get depressed at the ability of more open alternatives to be functional in general, the insane fact that only BS managed to sorta capitalize on Twitter and then Twitter managed to keep itself in place and recover is a massive failure. We should all be doing a lot of soul-searching about how badly we suck at organizing and pushing a cohesive message because man, did they try hard to fail and we just wouldn’t let them.
I’m not sure I can follow your argument here.
One the one hand you argue that because they haven’t enshittified yet, they will never do so in the future. That doesn’t square with how any platform ever has worked out, especially when VC money is involved. Sure, BS is run by a benefit corporation but even they have to turn a profit at some point. Besides, the best of intentions can be quickly diluted or even forgotten when a leadership change happens.
You also argue that if BS defederates from everyone, the rest of the ecosystem can just go on without them. The problem there is that in that case, the rest of the ecosystem has little reason to do so. Bluesky minus 99% of its users and content has very little going for it; the network effect is huge in social media. The third-party AT services would go from being part of Twitter’s greatest rival to being Mastodon but with fewer users. Also, BS would have little to lose in that scenario; virtually all users and content would still be there. In comparison, if BS only had a 60% market share, defederating would lose them enough content and activity to be a very unappealing prospect.
Also, the argument you’re going against is not that BS is inherently bad, it’s that the AT market is currently centralized to a sufficient degree that the benefits of federalization can’t fully come to play. The argument is not “fewer people should use Bluesky”, it’s “more people on Bluesky should be using third-party AT providers”. There’s a subtle difference here: The argument people are actually making isn’t aiming to diminish the AT ecosystem, it’s aiming to make it more resistant to unilateral enshittification.
No, that’s not what I’m arguing. We’ve gone from slippery slopes to straw men, apparently, much as I hate calling out the play.
I’m not arguing that because they haven’t enshittified they won’t enshittify. I’m arguing that because they haven’t enshittified, they haven’t enshittified and there is no indication to make it more or less likely that they will, how or when.
Big difference. You are implying, if not arguing, that there is a slippery slope towards a specific hypothetical scenario, but there’s no indication of it and even in that hypothetical there is no indication that the situation would be any worse than in the alternative you present. It’s just fallacious through and through. I don’t need to argue that they won’t ever enshittify for that to be a bad argument.
And by the way, you keep doing it. You immediately go back to a scenario in which BS defederates from itself and from a protocol they built, designed and presented as a USP in the first place. It remains obviously fallacious. I have no need to argue about a version of reality you made up, or to defend the inexistent version of players or events playing out solely in your head.
That last paragraph is a lot more valuable, though, but it is just restating the point I already addressed earlier. My point is that how many people are using third-party AT providers is entirely irrelevant, just like the number of fedi people not on mastodon.social is entirely irrelevant. The point of having a standing protocol is that people could move in the future. If BS did make very fundamentally bad choices people could conceivably move over then. The benefits of decentralization don’t exist until you have to move instances. There is nothing in your interaction with the service that is better because it is decentralized. In fact, decentralization makes a number of things harder to implement. But the presence of the possibility of defederation or migration fundamentally changes how service and instance owners can act by removing a BIG chunk of their leverage over the userbase’s data, relationships and content.
People here don’t like to hear it, but in that sense AT is actually more robust than AP. Account migration including follows and messages is a major part of that flexibility and it impacts that stickiness more than whatever the current distribution of users happens to be in a scenario where nobody is doing anything particularly shitty.
I would argue that even that flexibility is overstated. Once thing that we learned the hard way when people got weird about federating with Threads is that being decentralized does not mean you’re endlessly resilient and forks or disagreements that split the collective management down the middle can do really bad damage.
While we’re calling out improper arguments I could accuse you of using a motte and bailey argument there as you’ve gone from “there’s no indication that will happen” to “there is no indication to make it more or less likely that they will”. But I think this is more a case of communication being inherently imperfect, in both directions.
I didn’t say that they will inevitably enshittify, just that this has been the case with all mass-user services I am aware of, especially ones with VC funding behind them. Investors generally don’t throw big money at a company unless they expect some kind of ROI in the future. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that BS has a similar potential for enshittification as other social media services and to want it to be robust against that.
It makes sense to focus on an unhappy path here as the whole point of federated social media is to prevent or counteract that; the happy path is that they offer a great platform forever and federation barely matters. The AT protocol can provide a safeguard against certain types of platform misbehavior but not if one single service controls so much of the market that in the event of a split any other service immediately becomes irrelevant.
By the way, I chose the scenario I chose because I do consider it a likely path towards enshittification. If they need to monetize their user base because the investors want their money back, alternative AT services can break that monetization – e.g. if they were to aggressively push ads, other services could offer an ad-free experience and siphon off users, especially with AT’s account portability feature. That’s nice for the users but not so nice for the company. So how can they make the investors happy? By keeping people from fleeing, such as by breaking federation – or just account portability.
Of course, instead of a hard break, they could just pull a Kerberos and simply add important features to their implementation of AT that other services don’t get. Either way, the point is that any overwhelmingly large actor can undermine a supposedly open system. They don’t have to, but hey can.
That’s a failure state of the system itself; it can’t properly bring its strengths to bear. And that’s precisely the issue here. AT is in theory more robust than AP but in practice features like account portability rely on everybody playing by the rules. If BS control 99% of the AT market, they can choose to ignore the rules without significant repercussions.
While being overly picky about federation can harm a platform, so can putting all eggs in one basket.
No, I have not backpedalled my argument. You can’t claim I said a thing I didn’t say and then accuse me of changing my position for restating my point. I mean, you can, but it’s some bullshit and it’s not gonna fly. That’s why I don’t like calling out these things in public, it really brings the Google out of people.
I claimed there is no indication that it will happen the first time, you claimed that I was saying it would definitely not happen and I restated that no, what I said is there was no indication that it would go one way or the other. So no, there is no indication that it will happen.
You can keep pushing your hypothetical all you want, it won’t get any or more likely. You’ve decided to make up that scenario in reverse, because you have chosen a football team to support and are now imagining ways to justify that selection. The exact same scenario could be played out in reverse. If you’re building a doomsday scenario out of whole cloth you can get as convoluted as you want and say it seems likely to you. I could poke holes on it, and there are plenty to be poked, but that’d require accepting the premise and arguing about the hypothetical instead of reality. That’s why it’s a frequent fallacious argument in the first place. So we’re not doing that.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the argument you’re doing mental gymnastics to bypass is still that interoperability and decentralization only actualize when people need to move. The amount of concentration prior to people moving is, and remains, irrelevant, at least in relation to the importance of the feature existing in the first place.
I generally agree, except in the case of Bluesky specifically.
They have enough control of their protocol and platform to effectively be proprietary. The “decentralized” idea there is not much more than a marketing gimmick.
I mean, if you’re just gonna say the quiet part out loud… yeah, people just don’t like that Bluesky implemented a different version of AP in a corporate site and are desperately seeking ways to differentiate it and find exceptions to the rule because the whole “everything should be interoperable with everything” thing was always kinda bullshit and what people meant was “everybody should be in our playground where everything is interoperable among the things we like inside our playground”.
I find both of those versions of interoperability more appealing than everything being siloed and consolidated, but it was a disappointment to come to that realization. Which, granted, happened with the whole Threads federation debacle. Fedi fans going through that loop a second time and being impotently angry at Bluesky from a distance is relatively benign in comparison, except for the part where both should have integrated much more closely by now and both are being harmed to at least some extent by being slow at moving that forward.
I just would have liked for everybody involved to have been less dumb about this and maybe to have killed Twitter instead of letting its ambling zombie eat their lunch all over again. But here we are.
The fact that you ignore the massive amount of investor money they spend on keeping that place, shows how little you know about any of this.
It’s straight up disingenuous to claim fediverse failed to capitalize on anything because it’s not meant to replace the giant echo chambers funded by billionaires. It tries to accommodate what it can. People are free to try it and move on if that’s not their cup of tea. It’s meant to be a place for small communities to have their own place on the internet without being brigaded by bunch of malicious anonymous trolls. Unlike you, other people, with mostly marginalized voices think very highly of it.
You don’t have to accept it or you can stay perpetually mad at why everyone isn’t using your favorite protocol or platform. I think there’s enough room for all of us to be mad at some thing on the internet.
I am not ignoring that. Why would you assume I’m ignoring that?
I am aware of that and I am, look at me in the eye, 100% meaning what I’m saying.
There is by any and all framings around this case, zero reason anybody should be on Twitter anymore. It was a perfect death spiral. And there were competitors coming at it ranging from a TON of funding and closed ecosystems (hi there, Threads, someone remembered you exist) to fully open standards.
Also, spare me the back strain of limboing under the increasingly low bar. I was there on Masto when the Twitter implosion happened and nobody was out there lowering expectations and saying it was disingenuous or unrealistic to expect fedi would capitalize. It was a feeding frenzy and a massive party and people were drawing up plans for how to host 200 million people because scalability was a concern. And then that same hype came to Threads theoretically having hundreds of millions of people who happened to have an Instagram account, and then to Bluesky actually building some stable userbase in the old school web 2.0 startup fashion.
And they all stalled. It is not disingenuous to observe that. It is revisionist to pretend that people expected them, and Masto specifically to stall. That was not what happened. Until people started infighting about whether the tone of the place supported activists or minorities or whether federating with Threads was convenient or starting a blood feud with Bluesky because that’s more fun than losing a fight to Twitter, I suppose.
I hate the navel gazing and the excuses and the patting oneself in the back for a good failure. I am so tired of people choosing ineffectual self-righteousness over genuine impact.
Not as tired as I am of normies refusing to drop their bad online habits, for the record. Twitter continuing to exist at all, even if no competition was available, would be a travesty. But the self-serving arguments about why it’s cool for fedi to be unpopular or the endless purity tests in the relationships with Threads and Bluesky are exhausting and depressing as hell.