Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
News
Technology News
Bluesky Explained: Why This Social Media Network Is Growing by 1 Million Users a Day
Message
<blockquote data-quote="monkeylove" data-source="post: 1108734" data-attributes="member: 19756"><p>Several moved from X to Mastodon after Trump won, and after that the platform has been receiving tens of thousands of complaints per day because those who moved were being blocked by their allies for incomprehensible reasons. Earlier, one report revealed that for years the platform has been used for illegal activity, such as distribution of child porn.</p><p></p><p>Irionically, it was something that related to that which is what caused advertisers to leave Twitter before Musk bought it: according to Reuters, their promoted tweets were being shown alongside those supporting child porn and pedophilia. It was Dorsey's content managers that were allowing that; later, it was revealed that they were also colluding with media corporations and even government agencies to target those who did not support their political views.</p><p></p><p>Musk found out that the company was heavily mismanaged, with an HQ filled with expensive gym equipment and coffee makers, and moderators paid large amounts of money. He had to sell off the first and fire the second to cover losses. The latter complained, stating that the company would fall apart without them; instead, it ran even better.</p><p></p><p>Later, Dorsey returned, stating that Bluesky's making the same mistakes as Twitter, i.e., it's not exactly decentralized, while ironically returning to Twitter, stating that it's the future. What does this mean?</p><p></p><p>Decentralization leads to more freedom not only for users but for those who own instances. That means you can post anything you want but those who own the places where you post can block you for any reason. That's what's happening now at Mastodon, where the same critics of Twitter who left it are ironically not only getting a taste of their own medicine but from their own allies who previously left Twitter.</p><p></p><p>The result are not only echo chambers but small ones. You start with an instance where lots of enthusiastic platform migrants chant until one toxic admin starts blocking one user. Several become disgruntled, leave, form their own instance, and repeat the same process. Eventually, with less engagement and more fear that one might say the wrong thing comes not only lack of engagement but lack of quality of the same, because in an echo chamber everyone says the same things.</p><p></p><p>This is probably what Dorsey meant when he implied that X is the future, and why he unwittingly admitted that he ran Twitter wrongly: the problem's not lack of decentralization but over-moderation. I suspect he hired content managers who would comply with ESG because that's what investors want, but that was no longer necessary when Musk went private with Twitter.</p><p></p><p>What does that mean? In platforms like X, you can post anything as long as it's legal, but you can no longer stop others from doing the same simply because you didn't like what they said. In contrast, in decentralized platforms, you can post even illegal things as long as you keep it secure, but you can stop anyone from posting anything, legal or otherwise, for any reason, as you come up with the rules; at the same time, as a user, you can be abused by others in that manner.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="monkeylove, post: 1108734, member: 19756"] Several moved from X to Mastodon after Trump won, and after that the platform has been receiving tens of thousands of complaints per day because those who moved were being blocked by their allies for incomprehensible reasons. Earlier, one report revealed that for years the platform has been used for illegal activity, such as distribution of child porn. Irionically, it was something that related to that which is what caused advertisers to leave Twitter before Musk bought it: according to Reuters, their promoted tweets were being shown alongside those supporting child porn and pedophilia. It was Dorsey's content managers that were allowing that; later, it was revealed that they were also colluding with media corporations and even government agencies to target those who did not support their political views. Musk found out that the company was heavily mismanaged, with an HQ filled with expensive gym equipment and coffee makers, and moderators paid large amounts of money. He had to sell off the first and fire the second to cover losses. The latter complained, stating that the company would fall apart without them; instead, it ran even better. Later, Dorsey returned, stating that Bluesky's making the same mistakes as Twitter, i.e., it's not exactly decentralized, while ironically returning to Twitter, stating that it's the future. What does this mean? Decentralization leads to more freedom not only for users but for those who own instances. That means you can post anything you want but those who own the places where you post can block you for any reason. That's what's happening now at Mastodon, where the same critics of Twitter who left it are ironically not only getting a taste of their own medicine but from their own allies who previously left Twitter. The result are not only echo chambers but small ones. You start with an instance where lots of enthusiastic platform migrants chant until one toxic admin starts blocking one user. Several become disgruntled, leave, form their own instance, and repeat the same process. Eventually, with less engagement and more fear that one might say the wrong thing comes not only lack of engagement but lack of quality of the same, because in an echo chamber everyone says the same things. This is probably what Dorsey meant when he implied that X is the future, and why he unwittingly admitted that he ran Twitter wrongly: the problem's not lack of decentralization but over-moderation. I suspect he hired content managers who would comply with ESG because that's what investors want, but that was no longer necessary when Musk went private with Twitter. What does that mean? In platforms like X, you can post anything as long as it's legal, but you can no longer stop others from doing the same simply because you didn't like what they said. In contrast, in decentralized platforms, you can post even illegal things as long as you keep it secure, but you can stop anyone from posting anything, legal or otherwise, for any reason, as you come up with the rules; at the same time, as a user, you can be abused by others in that manner. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
