It’s not outside capital that leads to enshittification, it’s leverage that enshittifies a service.
A VC that understands that they can force you to wreck your users’ lives is always in danger of doing so. A VC who understands that doing this will make your service into an empty – and thus worthless – server is far less likely to do so (and if they do, at least your users can escape).
Incredibly clear article pointing out that no individuals will ever be able to resist enshittifaction pressures indefinitely.
The only way to prevent people with power from emiserating others is to structurally remove any benefit to doing so.
Last 16 years of my life have taught me (though I had read that stated before, just without such experimental confirmation) that even such obvious mechanisms humans don’t understand.
I mean, if you show the world as consisting of negotiating groups exchanging value in different dimensions, it’s pretty clear.
The concerns are true but if people leave Twitter for Bluesky it’s still an improvement because Elon uses the algorithm to boost far-right content and he has your data.
I mean, what if “we” just stop using various social media platforms all together? I remember the days when various people never really shared their opinions and beliefs about most topics to the general public. Maybe we should get back to face to face conversations about life topics.
It’s unlikely it’ll go back in the bottle, and that style of social media is capable of facilitating positive social change (Arab spring as one example) that may not have been possible without it.
The single example of a possible positive outcome? I remember when this happened, they made a big deal about it, however it may not have had that much of a positive effect. You know the void left to be filled with someone as bad or worse. https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/27/middleeast/egypt-how-we-got-here/index.html
Yes, it’s unfortunate it didn’t have a positive effect long term due to being coopted. :(
As people are going to continue to use twitter style websites until they fall out of fashion, I figure its best if that twitter-like is at least not controlled by people who can go rogue and do severe damage to society, such as what happened with twitter.
We realistically can’t ban them, we can only mitigate the bad. Personally I don’t use twitter style social media, only Lemmy.
Day 2984783 of mentally substituting “enshittification” with “rot”
Enshittification is specifically how something inevitably gets worse and more anti-user due to pressures from capitalism/shareholders/profit incentive.
Rot, at least in my mind, is not that specific. It could mean the codebase is not well maintained and slowly failing, as an example.
Yes, that’s true, but the word sounds bad so I’m using the more fun one. I suppose we could use a qualifier, like “corporate rot”
What is actually missing from AT Proto to be usable in the way Doctorow describes? He writes:
Bluesky lacks the one federated feature that is absolutely necessary for me to trust it: the ability to leave Bluesky and go to another host and continue to talk to the people I’ve entered into community with there. While there are many independently maintained servers that provide services to Bluesky and its users, there is only one Bluesky server. A federation of multiple servers, each a peer to the other, has been on Bluesky’s roadmap for as long as I’ve been following it, but they haven’t (yet) delivered it.
But according to the source code repo, federation features are fully available, including independent servers. There’s even a guide for setting up an independent server: https://atproto.com/guides/self-hosting
Edit: looks like I’m probably not missing anything, and the protocol is fully capable of what Doctorow wants, it just doesn’t have any other large instances yet: https://social.coop/@bnewbold/113420983888441504
Edit 2: I found a post that seems much more honest and informative about the actual limitations of AT Proto. In particular:
Relays cannot talk to Relays. If Bluesky Social, PBC decided to show ads (or do something else you don’t like), it would be very hard for you to switch to a different Relay and still be able to interact with all the other folks who stayed at the Bluesky Social, PBC Relay.
Edit 3: the “more honest” post above actually appears to be misleading as well: https://bsky.app/profile/shreyanjain.net/post/3lbndy6pknc2k
I’ve read over the documentation a few times and maybe I’ve missed it somewhere else but I’m not aware of any option to host a relay yet. As far as I know only self hosting PDS’s are an option now (which only handle your own data and authentication but still relies on a relay to serve you content from the rest of the network) and app views (which are the front ends that sort and show content)
So in a sense bluesky is distributed and portable within the ATProto network, but still centralized until other entities can host relays and interopt (or opt out of interoperability) within the network.
Here’s a post on how to set up a relay: https://whtwnd.com/bnewbold.net/entries/Notes on Running a Full-Network atproto Relay (July 2024)
…how is it Bluesky’s responsibility to set up an independent server? If they’re the ones that set up the server, how can it be independent?
Doctorow’s complaint only makes sense as a critique of Bluesky itself if he’s talking about the technical aspects of AT Proto. If what he really means is just “nobody has bothered to actually deploy and maintain a fully separate relay instance”, that’s not a problem with Bluesky, it’s an ecosystem issue that he could help by encouraging people to do that work, rather than discouraging them from learning about the platform.
I honestly don’t have much stake in this fight, I’m just frustrated that, as far as I can tell, Doctorow, an intelligent person with a nontrivial following, appears to be spreading misinformation about what is or isn’t possible with Bluesky.
