Purchase and manage domains directly through Bluesky
blueskyweb.xyz
blueskyweb.xyz
Bare minimum but fast message passing as a social communication layer.
If all of these new platforms are trying to become a better or more bloated version of what Twitter has become, then they will never catch on like the viral tool that Twitter originally was.
None of them learned the lesson of google wave, it seems. (i.e. look at these really cool features and extensions, this is what you want right?)
Thorough, complex, expansive feature sets are where those skillsets can shine; no glory in building something simple, to the point, and limited in scope.
Most products suck because people just cannot help themselves. It takes insane focus and control to override those tendencies when hundreds or thousands of people are working on a product (miss you Steve).
These three words evoke PTSD in me as hearing it means promotion is no-go again.
The domain feature hasn't blocked dev on more important things. In fact this deal is (according to bluesky) their first attempt at something to generate some revenue, with the goal being to never have to use advertising, something that the users would in fact be grateful for and consider to be important.
I was still naively thinking in terms of redirects from your old instance to your new one, but that's not going to help you if your old instance vanishes in thin air.
I think that we absolutely need more of this as this gives the users ownership over their identity. Right now, if the New York Times wants to get verified on social media they rely on the platform to do so. With this it would be their own choice.
DNS is really not a good platform to build personal identity on.
But I don't know if this is being imagined as "how businesses will communicate on our platform" or it is being treated as "regular users will totally manage their own DNS".
And yet you seem to be really confused about the difference between DNS and a domain name registration.
Curious.
Anyway my understanding is that Bluesky uses DIDs for exactly that reason, to punt the actual naming implementation and avoid silly internet fights like this.
And there’s already at least one blockchain purpose-built for naming - https://handshake.org/. Worth reading their design notes on how and why it works as it does.
Apart from that, I think per-service identities are the best that can be hoped for. If I choose to engage with Facebook, I have to trust them to some extent anyway, so trusting them with my identity on Facebook is probably good enough. If I want to establish that some Twitter identity is the same as some Instagram identity, I can do so by directly referencing them from one another. I don't think we can do much better than that without involving the state.
For individuals, the cost of losing your domain is far too high if it means losing your identity on multiple services at the same time. And, if nothing else, people eventually die, so domains will be lost by their original owner and then re-used, breaking the notion of identity again in the longer run.
People keep devising more and more involved ways to maintain identities other than your legal one, but if you think about it you can still lose any of those ways (your domain name, your private key, etc.) and in the end no one should use them for anything serious.
And if you take 1000s of judges of different ideologies who could do it, I would rather put my trust in Google that they won't mistakenly ban my account.
Entire brands are built around domain names, and even when not, they’re extremely common in advertising for most brands. To the tune of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars spent to acquire the right domain name.
Btw, do you have a better proposal to mitigate the risk of failure to renew domain registration in time?
If several services recognized your identity by virtue of having the same domain name, the fallout from losing that identity is much worse: you lose access to all these services at once, and whoever gets the domain name next will gain access to all of your followers and have a pre-built history. And if one service decides to ban you, you'll be exactly where you were if your identity was specific to that service.
So, with DNS-based cross-service identities, you are at best in the same place as having service-specific identities, and at worse, much worse off.
Additionally, a service which bans your account will typically not give the same name to a new user, or, even if they do, they will still separate the two identities / cleanup all previous posts. A DNS registrar will absolutely give the same domain to someone else if you stop paying for it, and any services which recognize that as your identity may not even know that a change in ownership has taken place.
For 99.9% of users this is a not at all simple.
I do agree with you, I just don’t think it’s really an issue unless having a domain is the only way to have an “identity” on the network. If it’s something you can opt into, then I don’t see how it’s a problem. It depends on the implementation of course.
This isn't unlike running your blog and I'm pretty sure there are solutions like WordPress.com that run it for you with your domain.
This is why Mastodon instances should be run by user-owned nonprofit cooperatives so that there's accountability on the day to day operations to the people who depend on it and there's policies around continuity of service. This doesn't have to be hard, and it already fits into existing legal frameworks.
* probably
I have to be honest, I can think of many far bigger issues with social media, namely, bullying, harassment, misinformation, and addiction, among others
So run your own instance?
SRV records are the correct solution, but neither WebFinger nor Mastodon chose to use them.
in fact, when corporations try to own their domain space authentication, they have to buy hundreds of lookalike domains to avoid imposters.
Add a few meta tags to your website homepage, use that homepage as your "identity" to log in to websites, and they'd up your configured identity provider to do the login & request name/email/whatever else. You weren't locked in to a particular provider, since you logged in as _your_ webpage and could change the meta tags to point to a different provider.
You are always leasing it, and if the registry decide to jack the price, remove your domain or give it to someone else they can (usually with some level of self-imposed rules). The ruls vary between gTLDs and ccTLDs, but believing you "own" a domain can be a dangerous assumption.
I don't know if domains are the way either, but at least they're a name reservation system that's established and works. At the current price of a domain, it comes down to $1 a month, which is a great value if you can use it to identify yourself with, authenticate, authorize and own your own digital identity.
It can also be cheaper, because if this is a mass service for every person out there, scale will reduce some of the cost.
The great advantage of this workflow is that it minimises damage in event of service shutdown or malicious actors.
By maintaining discrete identities for each service you are compartmentalising and building resilience. It also provides a first layer of privacy, since it becomes more difficult for a malicious actor to correlate identities across services.
Lot of feedback originally was common people won't bother to buy domain and integrate with BlueSky, so this is great that they are doing this.
For example, Bluesky right now is ironing out a fairly novel moderation system. They are doing this not only transparently, but with the input and active involvement of the users. This takes time and it is also wise to complete moderation systems before opening the app up to everyone. Ineffective (or nonexistent?!) moderation systems are one of the biggest issues people have with many/most platforms including Twitter, and it is more important that they get it right than they get a zillion users overnight.
Crowning whichever one can "move faster and break things" as the winner is the wrong approach, and demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding about the problems plaguing Twitter and other platforms.
Honestly, Threads and Bluesky are barely comparable given how different they are philosophically and on a lot of very fundamental levels.
Its clubhouse all over again.
I'd love an invite eventually so I could try it out and really form an opinion on the whole Threads vs Bluesky vs Twitter drama, but I fear it's going to take much longer and I'll lose interest entirely. Which is a shame because I actually really like Twitter and have actively used it for 10+ years, but man Elon is making it really easy for me to jump ship somewhere.
if threads get hundred million people in a short period and they start to write and interact with each other then that a good moat for them.
Might be that BlueSky is not trying to be a popular social media platform. But if they want to then having right now their signup closed is a very bad decision.
It is already hard to keep track of where each discussion is: twitter, mastodon, instagram, facebook, linkedin ...
I think people are maybe trying one more from what they currently have.
look at Clubhouse - they tried the invitation idea and died with it in their hands. When having so many platforms available almost no one waits for yet another one for 3 months to get their handle to finally talk with 10%of their existing network as their other 90% still waits their invitation.
Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, Discord, Youtube, Twitch all have specific niches in which they are dominant and cannot be unseated except through their own fault.
Messaging apps are a little more loose, I’ll give you that.
https://discord.com/blog/forum-channels-space-for-organized-...
Not trying to be sarcastic, just haven't had a chance to use this feature and wasn't sure if you were taking that into account.
A series of bad decisions let a lot of people to not want to continue build their audience on twitter.
It's still alive. But it's specifically them scaling up that killed their relevance because it turned out social audio was even better as a place for bullies and extremists than it is as an exclusive popular person hangout.
It's the same thing that happened to Snapchat when IG Stories came out. Except in the case of Clubhouse it happened even quicker because their was no technical moat.
The reason to engage like this is basically a mindless chasing after of hierarchy: you want everyone to know who their overlord is now. This is very important to a certain kind of mind in a certain kind of position, because they will start engaging with that as if it were already true and make business decisions presuming the winner...and to be right, everyone else needs to go along with it. Otherwise they're the weird guy at the meeting, talking about the also-ran.
So the old Slashdot moderation system, only with multiple layers?
And it should stay that way.
CJEU declares Meta/Facebook's GDPR approach largely illegal: https://noyb.eu/en/cjeu-declares-metafacebooks-gdpr-approach...
Threads won't launch until compliant with GDPR and Digital Markets Act: https://www.independent.ie/business/technology/no-instagram-...
Not launching in the EU is a massive red flag on the data hoovering ambitions facebook have for threads.
Not really. It just means they don’t want to wait for EU compliance to launch. It’s fairly standard to have an EU lag for feature releases, in the same way there is a lag for releasing certain content in Asia or financial products in the United States.
For obvious reasons, like the reasons the person you replied to mentioned: privacy violating features block apps like Threads from entering the EU market.
That's a good thing.
Why did you try Threads?
This question comes from a person who doesn't have a twitter account, so if the answer is that you want to replace your twitter usage with something else, could you elaborate the value you get out of these platforms?
Also props to the logo designer, I really like the fact that it's a thread.
Whereas Bluesky is firmly English, and probably tilting more towards American corporate English in terms of "Blue sky thinking". Substitute CielBleu as a thought experiment.
But even with that said, I thought "Bluesky" seemed perfectly fine as a name. It's perhaps tying itself a bit to being an "escape" or "clean start" (implicitly "from twitter", now that many people are dissatisfied with Elon's leadership), but nobody is going to forget that aspect of the social media landscape for a while, so I don't think it's a problem.
This is the type of feature / partnership you build in year 5, not pre-launch.
Wouldn't it be better to focus on features and scalability needed for opening up the network to more users to build the network beyond a beta phase or adding core features to the app?
Why? The high sensitivity domains that are most likely to want to be verified via the (mildly confusing) domain-to-user mapping on Bluesky already exist. To take your example, Apple is not likely to try and register iphone.apple.com on Namecheap.
On the other hand, "normal" users who just want to chat with their friends are not going to care, and might actually be a little confused by this announcement. "Wait, I need to buy a domain to use Bluesky?"
Now, I could be wrong, and Bluesky might be trying to get a bunch of high-flying corporate accounts on board first. In that case, they are doing the right thing, and I look forward to when large media orgs start posting on Bluesky.
- Users own their data and can take it anywhere they want to go.
- Developers will never get locked out of the ecosystems they help build.
- Creators will always own their relationships with their audience.
User portability is always possible without the user owning their domain. I suppose the creator relationships are maybe relevant to this domain stuff?
If you don’t attach a domain to your Bluesky profile, you get assigned yourname.bsky.social, which is inherently controlled by the platform. I’m glad that they are encouraging portable identities.
Definitely not because that’s not how it works. They already own apple.com and can verify any subdomain they want. Plus, I think some of those domains are so valuable the company creates their own registrar to manage them. Ex: RegistrarSafe is a subsidiary of Facebook. They’re definitely not using a consumer grade registrar like Namecheap.
I think domains are complicated for the average user, but if you sell them as premium, globally unique handles for only $10-20 (ish) per year, that’ll create a lot of demand.
Even if it’s only appealing to business users, domains as identities make a lot of sense because it allows a business to be definitively recognized across the internet. There’s no ambiguity or impersonation.
Otherwise I'm impressed with the launch and its sheer scale, very smooth.
> The real test is not if we can build up a lot of hype, but if you all find enough value in the app to keep using it over time. And there are tons of basics that are missing: search, hashtags, a following feed, graph syncing, fedeverse support, messaging maybe…
its like tiktok and twitter had a baby. it shows you content it thinks you will like based on how you use the app. i think? it's good at surfacing what i want to see based on my initial follows
There just isn't enough room in this market for contributors to post on this many text-based apps. And so consolidation will happen.
1) Threads will dominate. Mastodon will be like remora fish.
2) Twitter will be the home for "freedom of speech", Crypto bros, OnlyFans girls.
3) Truth Social, Gab, Post, Blueksy, Spoutible etc will die.
Let’s see how many stick around. Don’t get me wrong, I suspect you’re right. But given the promotion and ease of login I’m not at all surprised to see huge day one login numbers. The question is whether people like what they see enough to stick around.
Being able to migrate existing accounts in seconds tends to do that. Let’s see how many stick around.
You discount Threads user going the “easy” route, but think they will somehow go the “hard” way ?
Threads had 48m users just like that U2 album[1] sold 500m copies on iTunes.
[1] https://www.eonline.com/news/1071481/remember-when-apple-for...
Heck, Threads doesn’t even need to show ads and the displacement of ad money away from Twitter will benefit Meta as much of that Twitter ad money will get redirected to Meta properties like FB and IG instead.
That seems kind of strange to me, though, because 1 billion is more than 3x the entire Twitter user base.
Also Insta has 1bn+ active MAUs and Meta us leaning heavily on Insta for Threads
Twitter has an algorithmic feed.
Zuckerberg has said that they won't run ads until there is a credible path to 1 billion users.
So for a year or more it will be Threads with no ads. And Twitter with according to their newly hired CEO "full-screen, sound-on" ads.
And as mentioned you can simply Mute/Block them.
But there is going to be a year or more of Threads being ad-free whilst Twitter is not. That's a game changer.
Not it won't. Facebook removed the chronological feed 10 years ago, they won't reintroduce it in Threads.
"Curated" feeds is how they get announcers to pay for visibility since the user has no control over what it is displayed at a given time
Wat.
> ... centralized version and vision
They rushed to market.
With this decision they ensured you have content from the day one. Often irrelevant (which is risky), but TBH, I’ve found their algorithm to be ok. I’ll drop it as soon as possible, but for v0, I’m ok with it.
Not exactly. They can't even show you full timelines: https://bsky.app/profile/dholms.xyz/post/3jzsdcorxx42n
Also: I'm definitely not going to code anything?
Most people want this though. They don't just want to see people they follow, they want to be served an endless stream of takes and fight videos
It works, feels, tastes, shares, and functions like Classic Twitter without the waves of repugnant users or miserably overbaked features. Collaborative mute lists make screening out horseshit easy. Shit stays put and is there when you return to the app. The timeline is hard chronological and the utter lack of ads is delightful. Hashtag hash is not missed. Everything just works with a modicum of taste to boot.
Threads is not an equivalent product.
That tends to happen when there's an exclusive club, people want to peak in. It is, in no way, an indication of the quality of the platform.
> the waves of repugnant users or miserably overbaked features.
That tends to happen when there's hardly any users at all. The "repugnant" or "normals" will flock in all the same, if the platform ever takes off.
> the utter lack of ads is delightful.
That tends to happen in all pre-revenue startups. Twitter was ads-free for years.
Maybe it'll all be the usual grim broken carnival barking shit when you have an account too, but for right now we're all twirling in a teacup here.
Gotta have my filter bubble to protect me from 'misinformation.' At least this time it is crowdsourced so Jack doesn't even have to cooperate with any political campaigns.
I find the complete unwillingness for everyone still moaning about misinformation to admit they were wrong about that laptop to be probably the most insane thing I've seen in my life. The laptop story wasn't even that important, but the incessant and belligerent lying or moving the goalposts about what happened is breathtaking.
If you ever want to admit you're wrong, I won't make fun of you.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/03/10/975722882/the-rise-of-anti-as...
What are "normals"?
Is it any surprise Facebook got this right? Understanding "it's cool because there are people there" is part of their origin story, after all.
Protocol: https://atproto.com/
All Bluesky posts in real time: https://firesky.tv/
Honest question: are they emulating "classical Twitter" to the extent of going with self-hosted inefficient Rails implementation? Or what is their problem with scaling exactly in 2023 beyond ordering more instances in some AWS gui?
The threads app can pull in millions in a day because they can login with Instagram SSO, zero friction.
poasters post where the consumers are, and vice versa. Threads is on its way to bootstrapping this network effect in a way bluesky never even began to scratch due to the invite system and niche appeal
Nobody is going to move again. They had the chance of outrun threads but slept on it.
Whatever they release now, will never get initial users to get it off ground.
I don't think that's a fair criticism. Threads is backed by a $750 billion market cap megacorporation, while Bluesky just announced a seed round of $8 million, a mere drop in the bucket for Meta. https://blueskyweb.xyz/blog/7-05-2023-business-plan
Seems pretty clear typical users don't care about decentralization, verification for themselves, or algorithm customization at all. They just want to post and look at nonsense.
I'm not sure what will become of Bluesky, but I don't think it'll the Twitter replacement. Seems more like a classic case of developing for power users instead of typical ones.
But give any competent engineer and friend 8 million, and they'll build you a Twitter on steroids in 6 months.
You are correct, it is cliche to claim this.
Dorsey couldn't manage get a head start even with all that? If anything I'd think he was a CEO that gets easily distracted by the next shiny thing (Square, crypto, Nostr), which really doesn't bode well for Bluesky.
This just shows that Meta has a massive amount of resources available. They could afford to hire like crazy, which they did, and they could afford to lose untold billions. How many 000s of jobs and billions of dollars can Bluesky lose? (Zero.)
> Dorsey couldn't manage get a head start even with all that?
See this comment about Dorsey: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36627988
> If anything I'd think he was a CEO
He's not the CEO of Bluesky.
> gets easily distracted by the next shiny thing (Square, crypto, Nostr)
No, that's his main thing. He was distracted by also being CEO of Twitter, and Twitter suffered from that. He seemed like just a glorified mascot, on Twitter to shill for his other stuff. Remember also that Bluesky started as a Twitter project, but it basically got tossed out by Twitter after the Musk acquisition (along with almost everyone else).
And there’s more differences than just that, it’s a bit too soon to do a declaration of death I think
And the algorithm definitely changes once you start following more people.
Mine for example is chronological with the occasional recommended person in it.
None of that matters if the people you follow are on Threads but aren’t on Bluesky. And if the people you follow can’t get on Bluesky even if they wanted to, then off to Threads they will go and so everybody else will follow.
>"looking at my Twitter feed is a breath of fresh air after spending 24 hours on Threads. My feed over there is just full of stuff I don’t want to see. Threads just hit 50 million users, but the top complaint is the feed which is the main part of the app"
Sure, it chugged on for a few years, until it was inevitably killed-by-google.
The same thing will happen with Bluesky
My timeline on Bsky somehow always show people taking a dig at other rivals, and self congratulations. People regularly diss twitter, Mastodon and now the feed is full of people dissing on Threads. This bsky-is-not-twitter identity that bsky network latches onto will be detrimental to itself.
Also there are no federated servers anywhere in sight so far.
I will wait to try Bluesky. If it dies before I get the chance, then I won’t be using anything at all. Threads is not an option.
In the same way that the ideological specialization of Twitter is not helpful for its growth, these new networks will be likewise more of an echo-chamber, and regardless of the "correctness" of their ideology, the unilaterality of it will starve it of the multifaceted discourse which provides the "town square" functionality which is core to these platforms' ethos.
If you desire light hearted discussion, I suggest avoiding nonresponsive arguments and implications of pseudointellectualism.
that doesn't mean we don't _need_ what you're talking about, I just think there are people pushing two very different directions, what masses want vs what society needs
Threads for the status-seekers Spill for hip folks Truth Social for alt-right Bluesky for the cozy web Mastodon for the true geeks
So on and so on...and that's a good thing.
People switch when other people switch, generally. Those tired of Twitter now have an easy place to call home, there's not going to be any momentum to then want to switch again.
Mastodon tried, and did get some following, but IMO is too complicated in concept for the common user. Bsky on the other hand just blew it.
0. https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/12237/how-can-i-...
It was recently discussed here at HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36456233
TL;DR: it might be the 'Embrace, Extend, Extinguish' strategy.
In my opinion, the only way to go for a social media company is to be a non-profit.
One thing that is good about the internet has always been that nobody needs to know you're a dog. That you can move between worlds and identities as much as you want. That there is a hard break between my identity, and my social media accounts. I don't want a social security number on the internet!
This push here to decentralize oddly seems to amount to a kind of centralization of the one thing regular users probably dont want centralized! People like having alts, characters, fungible and plural accounts. Atproto argues that, in fact, this a problem to solve, and enough of one to justify creating an entire protocol to compete with activitypub. I am just not convinced of that pitch.
so no, bluesky isn't as dead as you may think. if anything it's gonna be as big as mastodon, as much as it pains me to say that as a fediverse advocate.
Extremely bitter about that ~17 years later. Extremely.
It was tied to my leftover MSDN account from when I worked at MS, so at that point it was no more free legal MS downloads for me :(
You can also add funds to your account in advance, just got an email suggesting that for an upcoming renewal.
Identity is a funny thing, and certainly online it is ambiguous because most of us think of it as being in some way absolute: we have our identities regardless of context, and we want our technology to reflect that.
I'd argue in reality our identities are functions of association. Groups we're part of, etc. Online identity as-is is like that, but with a feudal relationship between the "domain administrators" and the people who associate with them.
The right answer isn't to atomise identity (that's technically pretty hard to do anyway) but to make those identity-and-means-of-communication hosts into bonafide associations, owned by their members, operated for their benefit, and operated as constitutional democracies with rights to protect minorities and elections to the organisation's board, committees, or key executive positions.
We in tech need to get past the idea that the social problems that have emerged from the internet have technical solutions. Maybe some do, but the vast majority do not.
This was such a missed opportunity by the community, because app.net was the best implementation of a Twitter alternative ever made. Better than Bluesky, better than Mastodon, better than Threads, etc.
I quit Twitter in 2012 and joined app.net. It was great! But not enough people did that to make app.net last. I still think about what we could have had instead of the current lineup of crap. :-(
> Not in terms of control but in terms of floating the idea of paying an annual subscription fee.
Where did you see that, other than the general idea of "paid services"?
Here's where they seemed to focus on trying to build their own killer app rather than on third party apps:
> Could Broadcast be app.net’s breakout app? It depends on how quickly it can corral a large base of users on the publishing side — and it could also depend on whether Twitter and Facebook make moves toward selective push notifications, too.
https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2013/with-newslett...
Technically, app.net was a full-fledged Twitter clone, with twice the character limit of Twitter at the time. It was every bit as good as Twitter. As a centralized service, it didn't have the annoying, confusing friction of federated Mastodon, and it wasn't nearly as primitive as Bluesky, which is still very bare bones.
The best part was the community. Almost all of the toxicity of Twitter was absent. And no spam, no bots, or other crap like that.
> Pay $50/year for an API key
You weren't paying for an API key. You had a username and password like Twitter or any other social network. There was a full web interface, as well as native apps, just like Twitter.
And it had RSS feeds, which Twitter had just abolished in 2012.
> The branding made no sense, “app.net” a microblogging platform?
Sure, that was a bit weird. They pivoted to a social network from a previous venture.
> It felt like the only people who ever signed up to app.net were ex-third party twitter developers who felt burned by twitter’s 2012 changes.
Not true. Replace "developers" with "users".
Initially, there were a lot of signups for app.net. The problem was that people didn't quit Twitter. I personally quit Twitter and deleted my account, but most other people didn't fully commit to app.net and kept their Twitter accounts, so they found themselves splitting their time, which isn't a great experience, and a lot of their personal network was still only on Twitter. In the end, Twitter's network effect defeated app.net.
If people only knew in 2012 what Twitter would become in 2022...
The content on Bluesky is lacking, i know it’s because of the invite only system, and that has its advantages and disadvantages but Bluesky is going to run into a problem soon.
They obviously need content and users to stay alive, and the content is lacking. Currently it’s a very niche group of users who have a very distinct culture. They don’t leave much room for differing ideas.
It will be interesting watching this play out. They are positioned in a way that can beat threads, but they need to drop the invite ASAP and manage their onboarding of new users.
That means the culture will inevitably change, I’m not sure I see a way of it staying the same as normal people and more fringe people sign up.
IMO they should prioritize content creators. Engaging content on the platform that’s rich will be a huge leg up when they open up.
Helps too that currently i can’t even post a picture on threads without it crashing. Blue sky is definitely the more delightful sop to use.
1. At Meta, you had to use internal "approved" tooling to build you product. which is far worse than products in open market. BlueSky can put it all on serverless like AWS Lambda and call it a day.
2. If funds are an issue, then raise more. There's no way around it. you had to scale sometime. Even if you optimise well, you'll still burn a huge amount supporting free users.
3. Threads was built by 10 Engineers. A simple MVP shouldn't have a massive team behind it anyways.
I feel the founders are largely responsible for not having their priorities sorted out.
> If funds are an issue, then raise more.
This is exactly the cancer that’s eating most modern services. Burn money, raise money, burn money, have investors holding you by the balls demanding profitability over a massively expensive inefficient system, shove ads everywhere, degrade experience. Add more haphazard money-pit feature to drive value. Burn more money. Rinse and repeat.
> A simple MVP shouldn't have a massive team behind it anyways
This is true, but not for a social media app that’s expecting (or wanting) hundreds of millions of free non-paying users. Opening the floodgates, then optimizing after the fact worked in the 2000s, but it doesn’t work today. It’s a good way to repeat and be stuck in the cycle above.
I hope BlueSky doesn’t go in the way of Okuna(and lot of similar ones before it).
Really, if you want a consistent, permanent ID, we might as well use our government IDs everywhere...
I've tried the selfhostable pds and its definitely looking good, the ability to selfhost our data ourselves. Plus like the article promoted, the ability to link username to our own domain name.
> Bluesky offers an additional layer of privacy protection by acting as your domain registrar agent. We do not register your personal information with the WHOIS directory, which is a searchable database that holds information on domain ownership.
So is Bluesky the registrant of these domains, not the end-user?
Edited for clarity
It’s unclear to me who is the registrant in this scenario.
If blue sky then you don’t own anything and there is no portability.
If you are the registrant that’s great but namecheap is going to need contact information that’s verifiable which may turn people off who would like a bit more separation on their social profiles. I also wonder does blue sky see that registrant data? Can’t say I like that very much.
Honestly all these social media apps like Twitter suck. I never used Twitter nor social media much, probably won’t change.
Personally, I’m out. Y’all have fun and enjoy.
Hopefully someone else here can give you one and set you up today :)
Unfortunately went into my spam folder but happened to notice it
but really, Bluesky users have spent the past two months going wild with novelty domain names. You can pay $1 for the first year for all manner of stupid funny names, and people do.
For anyone here that would be easy - but for non-techies you can see the use case for a service that does it for them.
This really is just providing a convenient service that this specific userbase demonstrably wants.
If anyone else wanted to do the same they could, nobody's stopping you. But this is an actual service for Bluesky's users.
https://techcrunch.com/2023/07/05/bluesky-announces-its-8m-s...
I'd actually look at this, at least you get something for your money, than can be used elsewhere
Not yet! Is ICANN still accepting applications for new gTLDs?