Alt Text
Show parent replies
hmge i think its fair to say that people are complaining about relative nonissues (plc is a problem but honestly its the glaring remaining low-hanging fruit so its easy to harp on, and even if solved i dont think detractors would be content) buttt
<intermission> it’s not clear to me who the intended audience is so idk if it’s fair to say they’ve forgotten or not. also blegh it’s annoying that i need to potentially clarify im not subtweeting juliet back im just working out my own thoughts </intermission>
at least for me (this is what kasey kat and i chatted about last night) the main concerning thing is the continual prioritization of app over protocol. yes it’s a demo app ballooned out of control but i think that’s basically the most telling thing of all, that they chose to keep rolling forward.
ig i just worry you can’t roll back history, and with bsky it’s painfully obvious what things created as temporary patches become massive perpetual thorns (dms anyone?). because yea once implemented once it’s cannon and now your problem to deal with until replacement (have we ever actually seen
something replaced yet? for gods sake we still have backwards compatibility all over the place with things that haven’t been used for ages).
my core concern is that very rapidly there became an identification of bsky interests with the interests of the protocol in general, despite all the lip service to “the company is the future enemy”. like they knew cognitively what could happen but at nearly every single point that truly mattered
(okay this is entirely unfair, i wasn’t around for decisions, and obviously id mainly be exposed to choices that went in one way over the other) there was an approach of “well we just have to do this to stay afloat” or “we would be foolish not to ride this fortuitous wave of new users” and
protocol concerns went to the backburner. not to be dramatic but this really is the exact same dynamic of ML parties in relation to the proletariat, like yea ostensibly the app’s success could lead to the success of the protocol, but clearly these two interests aren’t one and the same.
and regardless of humble beginnings, that’s not where we are now. mao isn’t a poor rural kid anymore and is now a part of something larger, operating according to all sorts of mute compulsions. sure the history is important on the one hand, but it feels potentially obscuring as a contribution.
idk, it sometimes just gives “prolonged birth pangs” ad nauseam vibes. just give it more time, you’ll see, it’ll all come to fruition. and sure, maybe, but i’m pretty squeamish and untrusting. obvi i love all the folks working there (okay like 3 of them) but we’re operating at scales and logics
that go beyond individual intent, which is kind of the point. and no one’s like evil or whatever, they’re just kinda trapped it feels like.
and like, i don’t really have the answers here because im not a great political theorist of optimal capitalist corporate structure. would it have been better to spin off protocol as a separate entity to maintain that separation (similar to original twt inception LOL)?