Bluesky: Building a Social Internet
blueskyweb.xyz
blueskyweb.xyz
Only that no one around me have invites. I signed to the waitlist the first I saw them on HN, still nothing.
Insepid, undemocratic, uninclusive. Deeply unsocial.
It doesn’t look at all as something like Clubhouse was (which was exactly what you described). Some evidence is that a few people that I follow that got in say it looks empty (not “cool” or with everyone “that matters”), also the idea of customizable feed algorithm doesn’t align with the popularity contest strategy. And the rumors that Bluesky was having technical troubles after Twitter rate-limited users due to the high load.
Seeing how HN has a way of planting seeds in the minds of potential early adoptors, framing it as DOA may be the self-fulfilling prophecy we want to avoid if we want changes to unfold within our heavily centralised social media sphere.
Honestly, even without Threads I would not bet on BlueSky to be the winner in this space or even to be viable. The team got really lucky having the right product at the right time, and failed completely to capitalize on it. Or actually worse, they seemed to not even try to capitalize on it. Even trying and failing would have been bette.r
But you are right that while it remains invite-only it is limited. The real test will happen when they open the floodgates.
But, the landscape is certainly a LOT less friendly, at this point. Threads has obviously sucked the oxygen completely out of the room, so to speak, for the moment. Bluesky is likely consigned to a much more niche position, and may have difficulty surviving.
While I think your conclusion is a bit strong at the moment, within 1 - 3 months, it'll probably be far clearer. In particular, depending on how Threads is actually functioning ... if "Meta" plays it smart (and they do seem to be doing a surprisingly clever job, so far) in catering (enough) to users for that initial buy-in ... (the classic "first hit is free" of drug dealers everywhere [though, I don't consider these platforms to be straight-up just person-wrecking drugs, that use-case does hold across plenty of the population, I'd argue])...
Threads is the fastest growing social network and app in history and by now has ~100m users.
Network effects will take care of the rest.
I'm wondering whether it'll be Apple or Meta that becomes Zetatech...
Basically, marketing not technology will win. That, and instant signing on by uplift of the existing meta user base.
Google+ lost out on drive and will to live. It was a nice experience. Nice guys, came second in the race. They lost impetus, and they lost c* backing. Bluesky at least won't have that problem, it's the core product not a nice-to-have.
Then there’s conversation twitter. It’s smaller but it was there from the beginning, even before the celebrities showed up in force.
It seems to me that Threads will capture the consumption twitter market. I’m far from convinced that Threads will capture the conversation twitter market. So far, Bluesky feels to me the most like early twitter, community-wise.
It really depends on what you're discussing and the tone you're looking for.
Threads is already discouraging the type of brawling, political discussions you get on Twitter.
But it's amazing if you're wanting to talk about entertainment, photography, sports etc as the tone is more fun and positive courtesy of all of the Instagram people and the assertive moderation.
As it should. No matter how amazing the technology may be, a social network that almost nobody uses is a dud. IMO every day that Bsky stays in private beta it is losing more potential users. Marketing is more important than tech. Look at Threads, there is nothing particularly revolutionary about it’s tech, but in large part thanks to marketing and seeding the platform with well known users, it appears to be off to a great start.
Bluesky does not feel dead or lifeless, it’s much more lively than Mastodon because it isn’t fragmented by default, and the user-designed feed algorithms are a cool way to discover new conversations.
I wanted one because everyone I enjoyed following on Twitter was on Bluesky, singing its praise.
Now they're all on Threads, so I'm no longer interested in the invite code.
There's nothing wrong with a soft launch and there's nothing wrong with a community growing deliberately rather than for the sake of growing, and suffering the inevitable watering down that follows.
I do think that while "Threads" reduces reach, clamoring to get in, etc., OTOH, it will suck up most of the "worst of social media".
This may mean that Bluesky grows slowly and ends up with the best discussions, insights, expertise, etc.
I don't know if that will really work out / come to pass, nor how "viable" that could be on the business side (though Bluesky WAS founded as a "PBLLC" - so, immediately signaling no pursuit of the growth at any cost mentality that makes everything garbage constantly)... There are obvious reasons for and against this scenario, such as the strong inclination people have for "single sign-on" / "one app for purpose X" type structures (i.e., using both Threads and Bluesky might be too annoying), though, it does seem like Threads is planned to have some type of "fediverse" integration. Of course, knowing "Meta" and Psychoberg, I'll be surprised if that's even initially angled at integrating with, say, Bluesky and creating more value for everyone ... Unless the goal is simply to "embrace, extend, extinguish" ultimately, to create more value for "the (Zucker)Borg".
Am I missing something?
Now Threads is that.
Everyone I enjoyed following on Twitter is on Threads, so I don't need Twitter, and I certainly don't need Bluesky.
Edit: All gone, thanks for playing!
Of all the Twitter competitors, I find Bluesky the most intriguing. I love the idea of managing my own feeds and connecting my own domain. There is a sense of control and privacy that I find appealing. It remains to be seen if Bluesky can deliver on its vision, but I look forward to experiencing it for myself.
Also I suspect it's a high priority for Meta as it blunts any anti-competitive attack from regulators. Complying with open, interoperable standards is usually far more important than whether or not you're a monopoly. And the EU in particular already has the mechanism to demand these companies comply.
BlueSky could end up making a huge mistake by not adopting ActivityPub.
Given the history of invite-only societies, one or two particular outcomes seems highly likely. Is this the future of social?
Plenty of people are making a living from being public, though, so they will always need a public communication outlet. But maybe celebrities have been scared off by getting constantly cancelled and attacked, and would prefer that most people get news about them second-hand, through friendly intermediaries.
If they get decent user growth and remain profitable, having the right features and usability will make them a more appealing option as time goes on. It doesn't need to be overnight unless it's funded by VC cash that demands it be so...
Personally, I don't want another Twitter. I'd be more than happy for Reddit to sort it's stupidity out and good old forums to continue to provide organised hangouts for interest groups.
> Sign up for the Bluesky private beta.
Anyone else see the irony here?
For what it's worth, the protocol and data model is open and designed for redistribution [1], and the event stream of messages is freely available without login [2]. It's quite similar to Secure Scuttlebutt (which has the most beautiful protocol guide itself [3]) including the disadvantages that come with radical publication – for example described in this 2018 pre-LLM Facebook v. Cambridge Analytica-era comment [4].
[1] https://atproto.com/specs/data-model
Is there any hope for it now i wonder?