Harder to censor isn't exactly the goal. Harder to capture is. The point is to make social media providers replaceable so that users are able to express a choice. We do this already with the feed algorithms, which are predominantly third-party services within the community. As the rest of the protocol wraps, hosting and application services will be able to do the same.

> The point is to make social media providers replaceable

And how is that a sustainable business?

Not paying close attention but I thought the problem being fixed was that twitter was a business and blustery is designed as a protocol.

The same way that any healthy market with competition is. The companies providing good services are sustainable, while those unable or unwilling to compete aren't.

Any healthy market with competition builds a wall of vendor lock-in. The aim is always easy to adopt hard to walk away from.

"How could a business succeed without trapping its customers?"

Isn't it run by the same people who were famous for censoring twitter?

Who?

Jack Dorsey.

To the best of my knowledge, and further evidenced from some of Elon's leaked texts from last year, Jack Dorsey has always been an adamant defender of free speech. Advertisers and the government were probably the two largest forces driving censorship at the company.

I think that's right. He did appoint people who were definitely very comfortable censoring things, but he might've not been aware. When I've seen him in interviews, he doesn't seem especially aware in general!

Jack Dorsey. Isn't that when they were censoring news stories?

Jack Dorsey started BlueSky / the AT protocol, but has left to greener pastures: Nostr

Oh, I did not know.

> Twitter competitor with the aim to make it harder to censor

This problem has already been solved by Telegram.

You will never get censorship-free anything if there's money to be made by making it not so. Bluesky, Nostr, all these non-Twitter Twitters will also cater to advertiser needs as soon as VC money enters the picture.