Bluesky has gained a million new users in the last three days.

The platform posted about the milestone this afternoon, which it crossed after Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered a ban on Elon Musk’s X yesterday as part of an ongoing feud with the platform.

Apparently, enough are headed to Bluesky to drive its iOS app to the top of the Brazilian App Store, as TechCrunch writes.

  • @blindbunny@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    122 months ago

    Except it’s not. It’s real easy to learn you can choose any instance you’re welcome to. Normies are the ones choosing not to learn.

    I do feel sorry for them because they’re probably going to get pushed to the next billionaires social media in the next decade to be exploited there too.

    Unless I’m completely missing something? What’s so bad about the design? I’m pretty dumb and uneducated and I dig me some federated social media purely because it’s genuine compared to the owning class social media.

    • @SorteKanin@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      112 months ago

      I’m pretty dumb and uneducated

      Statistically speaking, the mere fact that you are here indicates that you are among the top percentages of tech literal people. This isn’t necessarily about intelligence or general education, but about tech literacy.

        • @SorteKanin@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          112 months ago

          That’s… exactly what I’m saying. Did you misunderstand my comment perhaps? Normies are not “choosing” not to learn, they just literally don’t have the tech literacy skills to easily participate in the fediverse. The fediverse should improve its UX to allow more people to participate.

    • @xthexder@l.sw0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Personally I wish there was a better way to link multiple accounts together to say they’re the same person. When I switched to hosting my own instance, I basically just abandoned my old account, but I would have loved to link them to have the history there.
      We have the technology, it could be as simple as SSH keys, or like how bitcoin wallets are unique and don’t require internet to verify a match.

      Edit: I actually just discovered that this is one of the main feature differences between ActivityPub and BlueSky’s AT Protocol. BlueSky has “account portability”, and now that you can self-host it, I’m seriously considering setting it up. It would be really nice if we get an update that lets the protocols federate with each other. I think that BlueSky has said they intend to support ActivityPub federation in the future.

      • @SorteKanin@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 months ago

        ActivityPub actually has a similar mechanism of a “Move” activity. There are just very few implementations that support that kind of thing.

        • @xthexder@l.sw0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          4
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          The main problem with that seems to be that the original server needs to be active to migrate. If the instance I’m on shuts down or is uncooperative, then my account history is gone. And for Mastodon, that’s even worse if you have a bunch of followers. These are all reasons I decided to self-host before I built up too much of a presence.

          • @SorteKanin@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            22 months ago

            Right, of course. I don’t really see any way any protocol can get around that though. If the original server is suddenly just gone, there is no way to tell it to move your account elsewhere. Hopefully such a situation should happen very rarely though.

            • @xthexder@l.sw0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              42 months ago

              Supposedly BlueSky has solved this by separating the data storage servers from the “relays” and “app view” servers, and since your account’s posts are cryptographically signed, they can come from any instance as long as the signature matches.

              That at least covers migrating followers and new posts, but I’m not really sure what would happen to old posts if a data server just went offline. I’ve still got more reading to do.

              • @SorteKanin@feddit.dk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                22 months ago

                But what if the server that holds the cryptographic keys is suddenly gone? Then what?

                Or does Bluesky use client-held keys? I just think client-held private keys is probably too complicated for most people to realistically and safely use.

                • @xthexder@l.sw0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  I assume you hold your own cryptographic keys, but I’m not actually sure how that works. Your client needs access to them to make posts, and it wouldn’t make sense for the server to hold your private key, since that would mean the owner of your instance could make posts as you.

                  I haven’t actually signed up to BlueSky to figure this out yet.

                  Edit: So it looks like users are authenticated using https://github.com/did-method-plc/did-method-plc But the keys are stored on the server, with an option to view your key for backup and migration. That does mean a certain level of trust with your instance, but you can self-host if that’s a concern. A malicious host at least can’t prevent you from rotating your keys and leaving (unless of course they steal your account entirely by rotating your keys themselves)

                  • @SorteKanin@feddit.dk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    12 months ago

                    it wouldn’t make sense for the server to hold your private key, since that would mean the owner of your instance could make posts as you.

                    I mean, this is quite normal and common for all traditional social media (or any site really) you sign up for. It’s what most ActivityPub instances do too, though there’s nothing in ActivityPub that requires the server to hold the private key. It could in principle be held by the client but I don’t believe there is any implementation that does that currently.