> that none of them -- X, Bluesky, Threads, or anything similar -- should be considered "the commons". They're private businesses with their own motives that ar

> that none of them -- X, Bluesky, Threads, or anything similar -- should be considered "the commons". They're private businesses with their own motives that are often in complete conflict with your own. Having seen this process of creation sustaining & decaying happen again and again, I totally get why you would feel this. And I forgive you for applying the thinning broadly like this, casting insidious doubt widely like this. But that's not what Bluesky is doing. Some links; first their o.g. app-lead (is that still right?), > The network should outlast the company. Imagine if the Web died when Netscape or Yahoo did! It's strange to even think that. The same should apply to social networks. https://bsky.app/profile/pfrazee.com/post/3lau2bgyolc2g https://bsky.app/profile/pfrazee.com/post/3lau2bgyolc2g (Or see 18 months ago, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35012757 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35012757) And ((new) board member) Mike Masnick & (founder) Jay Graber on protocols not platforms, 9 months ago (pre Mike on the board), https://bsky.app/profile/mmasnick.bsky.social/post/3kjtmw4m6bd24 https://bsky.app/profile/mmasnick.bsky.social/post/3kjtmw4m6... Steve Klabnik has a post, How Bluesky Works, that talks about what Bluesky is. Yes, right now a variety of the layers of At Protocol are run by BlueSky alone. But the data can retain its integrity even if they fail, the network & data is by design open & transparent to all & transferable, and it's all based on protocols. https://steveklabnik.com/writing/how-does-bluesky-work https://steveklabnik.com/writing/how-does-bluesky-work This hypothesis that everyone else has been rug pulled & so BlueSky will too defies a ton of very hard careful work that Jay began when she very specifically worked to make sure BlueSky could be independent, to make it based on protocols.