Why isn't Bluesky a peer-to-peer network?

Re:Why isn't Bluesky a peer-to-peer network? by pfraze on Monday January 22, 2024 @03:47AM (#39087596)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why isn't Bluesky a peer-to-peer network? by brabel on Monday January 22, 2024 @06:50AM (#39088489)

> The point is to make social media providers replaceable

And how is that a sustainable business?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why isn't Bluesky a peer-to-peer network? by detourdog on Monday January 22, 2024 @07:20AM (#39088690)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why isn't Bluesky a peer-to-peer network? by _Algernon_ on Monday January 22, 2024 @08:46AM (#39089449)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why isn't Bluesky a peer-to-peer network? by that_guy_iain on Monday January 22, 2024 @09:39AM (#39089960)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why isn't Bluesky a peer-to-peer network? by binary132 on Monday January 22, 2024 @08:48AM (#39089468)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]