6 ms·

This is true but still, Bluesky enables things that X just cannot. I've spend hours building a website (1) that counts which members of the French parliament s

This is true but still, Bluesky enables things that X just cannot. I've spend hours building a website (1) that counts which members of the French parliament still actively tweet on X, and which actively use Bluesky. The "analyse.ts" script for X did have to go through scraping, in a real browser connected to a real account. It got blocked every 30 or so profile views... The Bluesky script was a delight, using the open no-credentials API (2). Of course the Bluesky company can shut down their website or their API. But still, what this openness permits today is a significant difference from what X ever permitted. Their abstractions will stay and could be leveraged by another company with a team of 10 experimented developers. 1. The website is https://politix.top https://politix.top. Feel free to fork it for your own country. 2. Here is the Bluesky script https://github.com/laem/politix/blob/master/analyseBluesky.ts https://github.com/laem/politix/blob/master/analyseBluesky.t...

oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
> a significant difference from what X ever permitted I'm glad you specified "X" there; Twitter, of course, used to have a very good API. The bar has undoubtedly lowered.
- maelito 2y ago
  My memory fails, despite the fact that in 2012 I used the Twitter API, but I don't think it was this easy and open for Twitter before X, was it ?
  - Klonoar 2y ago
    Parts of it certainly were. I built a somewhat widely deployed feed widget back in ~2009/2010 that worked via JSON-P and public access. I assume this is all ancient history now and a distant memory to most, but there was an era where Twitter’s API was a ton of fun to work with.
glimshe 2y ago
"Openness",as far as for-profit businesses are concerned, is a marketing strategy. Once enough users are locked in, there is no reason to offer a valuable feature for free.
- maelito 2y ago
  > there is no reason to offer a valuable feature for free. Well that's of course OK with me : Bluesky should make their users pay. 10 % of users paying 1€/month, 1 % paying 10 €/month, for instance. That's ok, we're paying a service. But the API access and federation should remain free.
  - x-complexity 2y ago
    > But the API access and federation should remain free. ...no. APIs are not free cost-wise: They require server compute to serve requests, at minimum. IMO: Require API users to put down $2 to obtain access, and offer higher tiers for higher limits. I.E What Twitter's API already does.
  - strogonoff 2y ago
    This is an extremely unpopular take in today’s world where 99% of what you use is expected to be “free” and subsidized by those with interests thoroughly misaligned with yours. Nevertheless, it is my strong opinion that offering paid service is the only way to a healthy ecosystem, healthy competition, products that actually benefit the user, and the market that works as the market is supposed to (and that Big Social innovating[0] the subversion of this model is a tradegy with net negative effects on society). Not offering paid[1] service to customers means ultimately either 1) dying or 2) making someone else your paying customer (e.g., the advertisers being offered the users as the product).[2] That “someone else”, by being the source of revenue, will dictate how the service evolves, and their interests will not be aligned with the users’ except by sheer accident. In case of services like Bluesky, I doubt API access can be excluded from the equation, since it costs money, and when inevitably abused a lot of it, sadly. Federation overhead could in theory be subsidized by paying customers, or there could be smart controls such as letting certain servers federate for free if it benefits paying users while charging others an honest fee[3]. Finally, let’s not forget the good old “charge for the app”. Sure, being open means someone can build another, cheaper app, and someone will use it, but believe it or not—that’s normal competition; make your app better, respect your users, turn profit. Bluesky’s accepting large investment is a signal of not going in this direction, and is therefore worrying. [0] It could be said that some companies (e.g., Adobe and Microsoft) did something like that earlier, subverting the market via offering a product for free by not seriously chasing pirates. When someone’s choice is between two paid products—instead of free awesome product everyone pirates vs. some mediocre paid product—the competition works much better. However, their core offers were still paid, and crucially those were not social media services that prey on our attention and anxiety. [1] Before someone mentions the disadvantaged: offering subsidized options to those who need it is not mutually exclusive with a straightforward commercial model. [2] There’s also 3) becoming another Wikipedia, which happens every so often… Let’s be realistic. [3] A lot of courage would be required, as I can already hear the “walled garden” outcries.
splintercell 2y ago
The feature you're describing is only supported by BlueSky "for now". It isn't an essential element of the design of BS.

oneeyedpigeon 2y ago

> a significant difference from what X ever permitted I'm glad you specified "X" there; Twitter, of course, used to have a very good API. The bar has undoubtedly lowered.

maelito 2y ago
My memory fails, despite the fact that in 2012 I used the Twitter API, but I don't think it was this easy and open for Twitter before X, was it ?
- Klonoar 2y ago
  Parts of it certainly were. I built a somewhat widely deployed feed widget back in ~2009/2010 that worked via JSON-P and public access. I assume this is all ancient history now and a distant memory to most, but there was an era where Twitter’s API was a ton of fun to work with.

glimshe 2y ago

"Openness",as far as for-profit businesses are concerned, is a marketing strategy. Once enough users are locked in, there is no reason to offer a valuable feature for free.

maelito 2y ago
> there is no reason to offer a valuable feature for free. Well that's of course OK with me : Bluesky should make their users pay. 10 % of users paying 1€/month, 1 % paying 10 €/month, for instance. That's ok, we're paying a service. But the API access and federation should remain free.
- x-complexity 2y ago
  > But the API access and federation should remain free. ...no. APIs are not free cost-wise: They require server compute to serve requests, at minimum. IMO: Require API users to put down $2 to obtain access, and offer higher tiers for higher limits. I.E What Twitter's API already does.
- strogonoff 2y ago
  This is an extremely unpopular take in today’s world where 99% of what you use is expected to be “free” and subsidized by those with interests thoroughly misaligned with yours. Nevertheless, it is my strong opinion that offering paid service is the only way to a healthy ecosystem, healthy competition, products that actually benefit the user, and the market that works as the market is supposed to (and that Big Social innovating[0] the subversion of this model is a tradegy with net negative effects on society). Not offering paid[1] service to customers means ultimately either 1) dying or 2) making someone else your paying customer (e.g., the advertisers being offered the users as the product).[2] That “someone else”, by being the source of revenue, will dictate how the service evolves, and their interests will not be aligned with the users’ except by sheer accident. In case of services like Bluesky, I doubt API access can be excluded from the equation, since it costs money, and when inevitably abused a lot of it, sadly. Federation overhead could in theory be subsidized by paying customers, or there could be smart controls such as letting certain servers federate for free if it benefits paying users while charging others an honest fee[3]. Finally, let’s not forget the good old “charge for the app”. Sure, being open means someone can build another, cheaper app, and someone will use it, but believe it or not—that’s normal competition; make your app better, respect your users, turn profit. Bluesky’s accepting large investment is a signal of not going in this direction, and is therefore worrying. [0] It could be said that some companies (e.g., Adobe and Microsoft) did something like that earlier, subverting the market via offering a product for free by not seriously chasing pirates. When someone’s choice is between two paid products—instead of free awesome product everyone pirates vs. some mediocre paid product—the competition works much better. However, their core offers were still paid, and crucially those were not social media services that prey on our attention and anxiety. [1] Before someone mentions the disadvantaged: offering subsidized options to those who need it is not mutually exclusive with a straightforward commercial model. [2] There’s also 3) becoming another Wikipedia, which happens every so often… Let’s be realistic. [3] A lot of courage would be required, as I can already hear the “walled garden” outcries.

splintercell 2y ago

The feature you're describing is only supported by BlueSky "for now". It isn't an essential element of the design of BS.