Bruno Dias

There's this thing where a bunch of liberal-minded people pick one specific random fascist worm-man to repeatedly screenshot and repost and talk about ceaselessly with some mix of disapproval and dunking, a sort of 'disapproving wag of the finger cow' phenomenon analogous to a lolcow

Eg, in discussions of how Bluesky decentralization is kind of vaporware, people will often cite services like Tangled. But like, if someone wants a microblogging site, Tangled doesn't solve any kind of problem for them, does it?

None of this really is anywhere close to production ready or mature, of course; those are at this point just vague visions backed up by some alpha and beta software. But people confuse the two, mostly by accident but sometimes in ways that feel a bit disingenuous.

Way down the road the dream would be that you could use one identity and many apps to make all kinds of posts - video, photos, longform and shortform text, etc - and followers would also use different apps to consume a particular selection of those posts.

This is stuff like Tangled, Leaflet, etc. Atproto as a sort of framework for building different social media services, rather than as a way to build different implementations of basically the same service.

The *other* vision is composability; using the at protocol to build *different* services that speak a common language only to the extent that that's useful. You can use the same identity on Bluesky and on a longform blogging site, but the posts aren't really shared, etc.

Blacksky, Northsky, Deer Social, etc, are all examples of 'flatness'. They're bluesky-alikes (and at present none are really fully detached from bluesky or maturely available) where their existence would theoretically serve users with more resilience and autonomy.

One is flatness - 'decentralization' sort of in the Mastodon sense. Lots of people could run independent services that are *analogous to one another,* mostly identical, running the same software or similar software; and you'd have freedom of choice between those things.

I think there's two distinct visions of decentralization that are embedded in the architecture of the at protocol that aren't really 'at odds' as such but people often talk at cross-purposes by assuming people mean one when they mean the other.

drug from movie limitless
where buy drug from movie limitless
drug from movie limitless cheap 2025

Worker owned things will have much better time existing when people will understand that “the rich/capitalists” doesn’t mean “anybody who gets paid (slightly more than me) for their work”

okay 40 minutes into the episode he does kill someone in a cool way but you're on THIN ICE, show

not beating the nepo baby daycare allegations

definitely think the US gov't should stay shut down long enough that a bunch of foot soldiers miss a paycheck or three. history has shown that when empires do this it only leads to very normal and stable things

Unfortunately, 'easy low-friction comfortable app that you can just use without thinking about it' is incompatible with 'doesn't deteriorate into a hellscape over time'.

I think this statement is true: if you want good social media you're going to have to work for it. But it's also deranged, right? Imagine saying this about any other category of product that people use. People expect to just have an app where the posts live and not to have to think about it.

Social media sits in this strange world where the things that make it possibly good are inimical to anything that would make it convenient or mass-marketable. But in any market, convenience and mass appeal always win.

Good social media to me is necessarily 'enthusiast' social media – services that are by design friction-y and unyielding to low-investment users. Most people aren't actually interested in this, so they're not actually interested in social media that isn't a tarpit.

Honestly where I'm at is that social media can be good; it's unproven that it can be good and economically viable at the same time; it seems definite that it can't be good for the vast majority of people who want to use social media

episode 3 of day of the jackal time. the jackal better kill someone in a cool way or I'm unsubscribing and blocking

Do the wispways skip (which requires act 1 mt fay) so you don’t have to kill either last judge or phantom

This is just the hard transition from the Honeymoon phase to the "We're mallrats in a mall that hates us" phase. We don't leave because security wants us to leave, they can eat a dick. We leave when the Hot Topic and Sarku Japan close

it's not just that we rejected smart glasses 5-10 years ago, it's that the last attempt to inject them into our lives by google made this obvious: attaching a recording device to your body without the specific context of like skateboarding or motocross or w/e enables pvp globally

The thing is that for most people, having to think about the technical or economic foundation of a service you use is an UX failure mode

and it turns out - bsky is self-evident proof of this - that most people would rather just use the site run by venture capital, no matter how much anyone says "venture capital is gonna turn it to shit eventually"

GONE GONE THE AGE OF SKILL
STRATEGY THE THINKLAD'S SWILL
LABOR GAMES YE'LL NEVER "WIN"
THE ERA OF THE COIN BEGINS

bsky.app/profile/nuzc...

it feels like what jay expected from the waffle picture was 200 users going 'masterful post, madam... and I appreciate the subtle nod to a prior exchange!' and when that didn't happen it broke her brain

idk man it feels like bluesky's vision for social media is "people with institutional power gloat, taunt, and self-aggrandize to an audience of fawning sycophants" and I don't think this squares all too well with what people mostly want to use social media for

Anyone else notice in the past couple weeks that Bluesky doesn't even load half the time?

It just becomes a rule where whether or not you can say this shit is a question of how much institutional power you hold, which in turn only amplifies the anger at the obvious way in which this institutional power reproduces and justifies itself.