Yeah, I agree that with the people with larger numbers of followers there’s an inherent fear of losing relevance.
But surely there’s a sunk cost fallacy at play as well. Especially when I see no effort of these people to build a lateral following in alternative platforms. They can use that same volume of followers to platform the alternatives and pave the road for both themselves and others to find a viable way out. Without that effort in sight, I’m forced to question their intelligence or their intentions. Or both simultaneously.
Having said that, I still can’t justify the ones with no great following that decide to stay.
I know people probably think that they’re taking some level of “warrior keyboarding” right to the other side’s doorststep. All in behalf of raising awareness.
But…
these are not FOSS platforms with no algorithmic reinforcement for engagement. Precisely the opposite. So, all that people do is maximise engagement, and with that raise profit margins for the very people they’re trying to “take down”, and who can control what is visible and what isn’t from the get go.
If all these “nobodies” like myself decided to delete their accounts in these platforms and move on to the FOSS alternatives, and if we all continued to seek legislation to continue to open protocols online as the original promise of the internet that was taken from all of us, then people like Elizabeth May would have to leap as well, as the numbers that made them relevant would be gone elsewhere. And with that, these closed gated platforms with their shitty algorithms would be left in irrelevance with a user base akin to the size of something like TrueSocial. Given their current expenses they would be forced to downsize or file for bankruptcy.
This is the only way to fight conglomerates and their grip.
Doesn’t matter if it’s social platforms, digital services, supermarket chains, fast food giants etc etc
Boycotting accompanied by alternatives aligned with decentralisation and further legislation to insure sovereignty for everyone everywhere.
Good. That means she actually cares enough to go for other possibilities. I’m also certain that there’s at least a portion of their supporters who would crucify her if she wasn’t also on Bluesky.
By the way, do you know if BlueSky is open to the idea of federation? As anyone heard if there’s interest in it?
I read somewhere here on Lemmy someone commenting that the CEO of Signal Meredith Whittaker was inclined to be a part of the push for open protocols as well. Don’t know if that is true though. Didn’t seek to verify it.
But I always want to know who does support the good fight for what the internet is supposed to be.
they (ATProto - the protocol used on Blueasky) are working towards it with people from outside and pitching projects/ideas towards that in ATProto conferences
ATProto and ActivityPub “done right” might actually converge to the same thing
i wouldn’t expect it to happen anytime soon though its nice there are Fediverse platforms like Friendica that can communicate with BlueSky meanwhile
now in regard to Meredith Whittaker i couldnt find nor ever heard of such thing being said
In regards to Meredith Whittaker and Signal… If I remember correctly when I read that rumour, it was in regards of the push that the EU has going on for Message Apps to open their protocols.
Delta Chat for example, already has open protocols with emails. But there’s no allies joining in on the message app front.
As one would expect, Meta is fighting this with WhatsApp and Messenger. The fact they don’t connect both of these, with them being within the same company tells us all.
But I haven’t been following this as closely as I probably should. So don’t know if that Signal rumour is remotely true.
The EU push for it is true though. But if they’ll manage to enforce it is another conversation entirely.
Yeah, I agree that with the people with larger numbers of followers there’s an inherent fear of losing relevance.
But surely there’s a sunk cost fallacy at play as well. Especially when I see no effort of these people to build a lateral following in alternative platforms. They can use that same volume of followers to platform the alternatives and pave the road for both themselves and others to find a viable way out. Without that effort in sight, I’m forced to question their intelligence or their intentions. Or both simultaneously.
Having said that, I still can’t justify the ones with no great following that decide to stay.
I know people probably think that they’re taking some level of “warrior keyboarding” right to the other side’s doorststep. All in behalf of raising awareness.
But…
these are not FOSS platforms with no algorithmic reinforcement for engagement. Precisely the opposite. So, all that people do is maximise engagement, and with that raise profit margins for the very people they’re trying to “take down”, and who can control what is visible and what isn’t from the get go.
If all these “nobodies” like myself decided to delete their accounts in these platforms and move on to the FOSS alternatives, and if we all continued to seek legislation to continue to open protocols online as the original promise of the internet that was taken from all of us, then people like Elizabeth May would have to leap as well, as the numbers that made them relevant would be gone elsewhere. And with that, these closed gated platforms with their shitty algorithms would be left in irrelevance with a user base akin to the size of something like TrueSocial. Given their current expenses they would be forced to downsize or file for bankruptcy.
This is the only way to fight conglomerates and their grip.
Doesn’t matter if it’s social platforms, digital services, supermarket chains, fast food giants etc etc
Boycotting accompanied by alternatives aligned with decentralisation and further legislation to insure sovereignty for everyone everywhere.
shes not very active but shes on BlueSky so you can see how much engagement she gets outside
https://bsky.app/profile/elizabethemay.bsky.social
Good. That means she actually cares enough to go for other possibilities. I’m also certain that there’s at least a portion of their supporters who would crucify her if she wasn’t also on Bluesky.
By the way, do you know if BlueSky is open to the idea of federation? As anyone heard if there’s interest in it?
I read somewhere here on Lemmy someone commenting that the CEO of Signal Meredith Whittaker was inclined to be a part of the push for open protocols as well. Don’t know if that is true though. Didn’t seek to verify it.
But I always want to know who does support the good fight for what the internet is supposed to be.
Blusky as far as I understand isn’t much better than X if you want to leave the Silicon Valley techbro culture and VC funding.
Yeah, I think the same. But if they work towards federation, they’re at least on the right side of things. Unlike Meta, X and most of Silicon Valley.
they (ATProto - the protocol used on Blueasky) are working towards it with people from outside and pitching projects/ideas towards that in ATProto conferences
i wouldn’t expect it to happen anytime soon though its nice there are Fediverse platforms like Friendica that can communicate with BlueSky meanwhile
now in regard to Meredith Whittaker i couldnt find nor ever heard of such thing being said
Oh, thanks. That is very good news.
In regards to Meredith Whittaker and Signal… If I remember correctly when I read that rumour, it was in regards of the push that the EU has going on for Message Apps to open their protocols.
Delta Chat for example, already has open protocols with emails. But there’s no allies joining in on the message app front.
As one would expect, Meta is fighting this with WhatsApp and Messenger. The fact they don’t connect both of these, with them being within the same company tells us all.
But I haven’t been following this as closely as I probably should. So don’t know if that Signal rumour is remotely true.
The EU push for it is true though. But if they’ll manage to enforce it is another conversation entirely.