Because silicon valley thinks it can define reality however it wants and keep telling us not to believe our lying eyes.
Weirdly this seems to work better on techy people who don’t like thinking about politics but understand the technical details of this extremely well than it does on normie progressives because progressives just see the obvious predatory reality and don’t get distracted in minutiae connected to very obviously empty promises.
The tech press does not ever talk to progressives though…
this seems to work better on techy people who don’t like thinking about politics but understand the technical details
Not weird at all; this was the case with cryptocurrency too. Otherwise qualified and intelligent people would invest in centralized scam coins because they had no understanding of economics, just tech.
It’s sad but cool that it works the same way with social capital.
Because, despite being wildly impractical, it’s technically built on tech that COULD be decentralized. Only recent a new host launched called Black sky. So it is no longer just one host. But it’s been one host for so long it almost doesn’t matter because so few people will switch.
Technically, yes, if you squint; but, practically, no. It was designed with a prioritization of passing the information/data around to avoid any lack of missing anything (so you get a closer experience to the connectedness of Twitter than Mastodon) which means every instance hosts, basically, the entire world. Naturally, there’s only going to be a few entities that can store and afford to store the entirety of the data of the network. There’s no such thing as a small instance, in their protocol.
So why does everyone keep referring to Bluesky as decentralized or even comparable to the fediverse
Bluesky is the newest iteration of privately owned and controlled social media
Because silicon valley thinks it can define reality however it wants and keep telling us not to believe our lying eyes.
Weirdly this seems to work better on techy people who don’t like thinking about politics but understand the technical details of this extremely well than it does on normie progressives because progressives just see the obvious predatory reality and don’t get distracted in minutiae connected to very obviously empty promises.
The tech press does not ever talk to progressives though…
Does it? None of my normie progressive friends are on the fediverse. The ones that tried it didn’t like it.
calling people normies tends to do that
Not weird at all; this was the case with cryptocurrency too. Otherwise qualified and intelligent people would invest in centralized scam coins because they had no understanding of economics, just tech.
It’s sad but cool that it works the same way with social capital.
Because, despite being wildly impractical, it’s technically built on tech that COULD be decentralized. Only recent a new host launched called Black sky. So it is no longer just one host. But it’s been one host for so long it almost doesn’t matter because so few people will switch.
Technically, yes, if you squint; but, practically, no. It was designed with a prioritization of passing the information/data around to avoid any lack of missing anything (so you get a closer experience to the connectedness of Twitter than Mastodon) which means every instance hosts, basically, the entire world. Naturally, there’s only going to be a few entities that can store and afford to store the entirety of the data of the network. There’s no such thing as a small instance, in their protocol.
They call it marketing, I call it propaganda.