> Bluesky doesn't need to generate billions of dollars
Are you sure their investors share this vision?
Are you sure their investors share this vision?
2. I really don't care if the investors/shareholders are disappointed as long as the PBC's mission is fulfilled. Also their control is relatively limited.
Maybe I should have written added this:
Disclaimer: I am a shareholder in Bluesky Social, PBC (former employee)
And it's the only open network built on an open protocol to ever do so.
Will it? How much of that doesn't run on investor backed servers today? People often say stuff like this but I haven't seen that work in practice.
I’ve seen posts about some poorly-publicized, proof-of-concept alternative implementations that would probably fall over if they got real attention, but I think that shows that it’s not a problem with the protocol itself.
Good enough, as far as I’m concerned. It’s just about posting comments on the Internet, not bank accounts. If something went fatally wrong, we would move again, just like we moved off previous social networks.
Everyone says that right up until they read the news where the US Government bails those investors out.