Skip to main content


People keep reacting to Blueksky VC news with variations on "now they're going to enshittify," but no. Not yet. VC funding is runway. It's time they can devote to user-friendly features that boost growth. For years to come, Bluesky will look and feel increasingly great. The bits they build in service to their investors will largely be invisible, or presented as optional—data harvesting and brokerage, engagement juicing, blockchain functionality, etc. Enshittification comes later, when the VCs try to wring a little extra juice from an investment that has peaked. It's the coming growth period, when everything seems awesome, that sets us up for that fall.
in reply to L. Rhodes

Lots of people are rushing to Bluesky thinking it will turn out differently from Twitter, and they're wrong. But lots of people here expect the heel turn to come soon, to the fediverse's advantage, and they're also wrong.

And while we're at it, the people who suppose that Bluesky and its VC investors will idly let outsiders bridge in and get more of Bluesky's benefits than its drawbacks are probably wrong, as well.

The economic logic doesn't support any of those suppositions.

in reply to L. Rhodes

Others are much more qualified to assess Bluesky/AT's technical design, but the really clever part of its structural design is the Venn diagram at its heart. There are structures that support marketable, user-friendly features, like account portability and subscription algorithms. And there are structures that facilitate the sort of exploitative, extractive practices that enriched earlier social media platforms. Bluesky/AT seems designed to maximize the overlap between them. No structure supports one goal without also supporting the other.
in reply to L. Rhodes

That's why I always hesitate whenever someone says, "We should be learning and incorporating as much as we can from Bluesky"—because the Bluesky features we covet are almost always built on structures that were designed in anticipation of eventually treating the network's users as a resource to be mined for profit. The question we should ask about any feature is not: Can we do that here? —but rather: Can it be done without replicating the exploitative structures it's built on there?
in reply to L. Rhodes

Anyway, none of this is to say that the fediverse is superior—just that our problems are different, they stem from different assumptions, having grown from a different set of material conditions. Borrowing solutions from Bluesky seems just as likely to mire us in their eventual problems as it is to solve the problems we have now. If we're going to make this network, our network, a better place for future members, then we need to be clear about what makes the fediverse different.
in reply to L. Rhodes

My old man used tio say, 'Never borrow another man's trouble for the same reasons you wouldn't f*ck his wife."

VCs are parasites on the ass of capitalism.

in reply to L. Rhodes

Now in blog post form: destructured.net/bluesky-enshi…
in reply to L. Rhodes

Thus has it ever been with OSS projects. The year of the #Linux desktop never comes, because it is easier for corporate IT departments to blame Microsoft rather than taking responsibility.

Recently a bakery here in town closed and a completely different person opened a completely different bakery business in the same physical space. People complain all the time that the "new owners" have changed everything. And refuse to understand they didn't buy the business, they just are renting the same space.

OSS is similar.

And frankly, I am happy that people are flocking to Bluesky. And that there is no huge move to the Linux desktop. As long as we are an unprofitable backwater, enshittification will stay away.

in reply to L. Rhodes

If you want to know what those features are, ask black users of Bluesky. Or some black people here who have been asking for said features since this whole thing began.
in reply to FinalOverdrive

@FinalOverdrive I'm aware. I'm just not convinced that serving those communities requires mass data collection and user monetization.
in reply to L. Rhodes

then what's stopping you, given we all agree user monetezation and mass data collection is unacceptable.
in reply to L. Rhodes

When #Bluesky enshittifies, everyone will either go back to #twitter or to a new corporate "alternative," because most people would rather die than go through the ordeal of picking an instance, apparently.

@pence

in reply to L. Rhodes

not sure what the benefits we might get by bridging with Bluesky such that its owners might want to keep us out.
Clearly there are some in the #Fediverse who may want to bridge in to Bluesky but equally there are plenty of others, including me, who want to keep as far away from it as possible.
in reply to L. Rhodes

Bridges create more views and better stats for fundraising rounds. So from that perspective I suspect they will be tolerated for quite a while. At least until a subscription or ad model is implemented.
in reply to Dan Neuman

@dan613 They may be tolerated, but that doesn't mean they'll be treated with parity.
in reply to L. Rhodes

It’s so downright sad that all your analysis writing is gonna be gone in a few weeks. 😭
in reply to L. Rhodes

I agree, and I'm hoping this gives us some space to apply the knowledge we've gained, and build/prepare toward that in the coming years. Easier when we can be thoughtful and focused, when it's not on us to respond to short term emergency of saving the world from Elon Musk.
in reply to Jesse Baer 🔥

@misc It would be nice if this cycle convinced the most prominent devs that there's no real competing with Bluesky on growth, and that fediverse services are better off concentrating on differentiating factors, like the ability to stand up self-sustaining grassroots communities. I don't know how likely that is, though.
in reply to L. Rhodes

@misc im not sure on how likely it is either, but it absolutely is what im hoping for.

the advantage of having bluesky around is that it can make it much clearer in what direction fedi should not go in

in reply to Laurens Hof

@laurenshof Pretty optimistic *enough* people will recognize this and act on it even if they don't.
in reply to Jesse Baer 🔥

@misc @laurenshof I would bet on forked projects over main branch Mastodon development at this point.
in reply to L. Rhodes

fork fork fork fork fork fork :)

but yes, agreed with everybody all around on this thread

@lrhodes @misc @laurenshof

in reply to The Nexus of Privacy

@thenexusofprivacy @misc

id much prefer different software altogether at this point, as that allows you to revisit all assumptions that are build into the twitter-style public microblogging, and design for networked communities from the beginning

plus avoids technical and cultural debt that masto has

in reply to Laurens Hof

@laurenshof @thenexusofprivacy Definitely seems like a good time to sketch out visions of what could be. Some blue sky thinking, as it were.
in reply to Jesse Baer 🔥

@misc @laurenshof @thenexusofprivacy I've been thinking about outlining what I'd like to see in a fediverse service. Probably as a post on destructured.
in reply to L. Rhodes

And users will come to feel trapped even more than they do on Xitter right now.
in reply to L. Rhodes

I haven't looked at all at Bluesky but I keep hearing about it. Is it FOSS or a closed thing like Twitter? Why would I bother with it when I have Mastodon...?
in reply to L. Rhodes

Those of us who see the obvious know about the timing of the enshittification. It will coincidentally happen about 3 years from now, just in time to ruin the next election. Heck, it might even be Elon Musk himself who buys Bluesky 3 years from now, just so he can laugh at all the fools who fled to Bluesky.

And all the fools fleeing to Bluesky don't see it.