new article in Science on academic Bluesky
by @kakape
new article in Science on academic Bluesky
by @kakape
@UlrikeHahn @kakape
(this is my personal opinion, not an official position of FediScience e.V.)
On the one hand it's good that people just move off X, but I do feel a soupcon of personal disappointment that they mostly seem to prefer the next shiny thing without really considering the long term prospects and how their new network is run. (And I realize that this feeling is probably because of a typical do-gooder attitude that doesn't understand why people just don't want what I think is good for them:)
But the last paragraph in the linked article is pretty poignant. Currently BS does not have a real sustainable business model, it's all investor money. Their board doesn't want ads and hopefully they find a different way to make money, but who knows.
So, can we learn from BS' apparent attraction to make sure the Fediverse stays around as an option? Do we need to make changes or is enough to just be there and keep doing 'the right thing'?
If there are particular ideas how we can make the Fediverse more interesting for scientists (new Mastodon features or connected service platforms etc), I'd be interested to hear them.
@tmalsburg @kakape I’m inclined to agree. It’s already started: the AI training set, Jesse Singal’s presence, are issues prompting upset there that strike me as following directly from fundamental design choices (i.e., all data and content are public, for any third party, for whatever purpose; composable moderation as choose-your-own-adventure).
Those core design features have consequences at odds with core values of many on the platform, and it will be interesting to see how that tension plays out.