Molly White“our lead shares our philosophy that technology should serve the user, not the reverse
this is why they focus on blockchains, a technology basically always used at the expense of its users”
i do think the degree to which bluesky is stressing that they do not use blockchains really underscores how toxic even a faint whiff of blockchain has become to any normal platform
“in conclusion, we truly believe these leopards won’t eat our face.
love, bluesky”
love, bluesky”
Bill Seitz@molly0xfff funding-model eats culture and strategy for breakfast
Secret Squirrel@molly0xfff Oh ffs, why??!
jedmund@Secret_Squirrel @molly0xfff turns out building things costs money
@infosec_jcp 🐈🃏 done differentlyDoes this means there are / is now a bunch of hyper 13M+ ' active NFT users ' confirmed or ' user experience : chart not found '? 👀👀
fmc01@infosec_jcp @molly0xfff They (the Bluesky people) can always go get Thread-ed.
Angel Ponce@molly0xfff Narrator: They did, in fact, eat their faces.
Oggie@molly0xfff
I mean, it's entirely possible it will all be fine, and everything will work out well
But they also just invested a nontrivial amount of cash in a business with literally no public plan for how to make money, and are going to expect a return on that investment. They also don't seem to have a track record of just hurling money at things because they want to be nice?
So, um...yeah. I have no idea what happens, I honestly hope for the best, but it's hard to image this is stringless
Sex Crazed SaltShaker of DeathIt worked for dorsey before...
Alaric@molly0xfff my guess is it’s eventually going to be bought by a billionaire with an agenda and they’re all going to have to flee again.
Kai Klostermann
Jared White (ResistanceNet ✊)@molly0xfff I *promise* I won't pull the ball away this time, Charlie Brown!
your idiot friend@molly0xfff “and to make sure everyone benefits we’re adding the leopard to our board where they could theoretically vote to change our policy on eating faces”
Patrick Morris Miller@molly0xfff "You knew damn well I was a snake."
BrettThey need to publicize their charter. We don't even know what their "public benefit" goals are. We don't know the voting power breakdown of their ownership structure. We don't know what their plans for profitability are (other than obviously selling your data and ads eventually).
AT Protocol is a centralized system masquerading as a decentralized platform simply because they give you the option of running the entire infrastructure yourself (which nobody ever will).
Everything about this company is geared to make you believe its something that it isn't. They're all frauds and people using Bluesky are marks at best.
Garrett Wollman@bflipp @molly0xfff Nobody gives a fuck about "centralized" or "decentralized" except a bunch of old-timey internet nerds (I include myself in that group). The users want a platform that lets them chat with their friends and acquaintances and parasocial crushes (and yell at the media) with as little friction as possible. They Do Not Care who owns it, so long as they're not assaulted with nazi propaganda every time they log in.
Calamity Joan 😷@molly0xfff That's it. That's the toot.
DroidPortDo you have any idea how much the $15million represents to BlueSky? As either operation or valuation?
Kelson@DroidPort Eventually the bill comes due.
Sure... I'm not sure some crowd-funded crypto investment will be able to cover that.
@DroidPort Exactly.
Yea... Great, we remain in full agreement.
The reason I asked my original question, is that I wanted to know how much this $15mil represents currently.
There are people on Mastodon screaming about how "Bluesky is now owned by a Crypto Firm"... as if the downfall of another platform should be celebrated.
It has neither collapsed nor under new ownership. I am hoping for some more info, not just 'bLuEsKy bAd' and 'cRyPTo BaD'.
FediThing 
Also, they are using the present tense rather than the future. It's factual that they don't use blockchain right now, and that's all they were sure about. They didn't say "we will never use it" and didn't even say anything more wiggleroom-ish either such as "we have no intention of using it".
All they said about their future plans was they wouldn't "hyperfinancialize" the "social experience". This is so vague as to be meaningless in practice. What does that actually rule out?
Talin@molly0xfff or the last 10 years I have consistently voted for the party that claims to want to prevent leopards eating faces, and each time I've been disappointed by the lack of progress.
I've had enough. This year, I'm voting for the other guy.
ɹ uɐp 
@talin @molly0xfff and guess who is getting blocked