Update: My take on this has changed, due to @jeremiah, @jorgecandeias, and @koen_hufkens referring me to essays about this issue by @cwebber (I had read parts of them but not all). I'm convinced by Christine Lemmer-Webber's analysis: the AT protocol is decentralizable in theory, but seems constructed in such a way that any real implementation of a second bluesky server would cost millions of dollars; it does not seem feasible to make a network of bluesky-type servers on "normal-people" budgets, unless something about that codebase changes.
Original post (much more optimistic) below. -----------------
"Smart leftism pays attention to these differences [in flavors of capitalism], because they represent the potential fault lines in capitalism's coalition..."
"I'm saying that it's good praxis to understand these divisions in capitalism, because then we can exploit those differences to make real, material gains for human thriving and worker rights. Lumping all for-profit businesses together as identical and irredeemable is bad tactics."
"My answer to 'why spend money fixing Bluesky?' is 'why leave 20 million people at risk of enshittification when we could not only make them safe, but also create the toolchain to allow many, many organizations to operate a whole federation of Bluesky servers?' If you care about a better internet – and not just the Fediverse – then you should share this goal, too."
@pluralistic politely but firmly calling the purity-testing, gatekeeping leftists (and Fediversians) on the carpet and it's a discussion that is always timely. I am here for it.
https://pluralistic.net/2025/01/20/capitalist-unrealism/
”
) every 1st
, but start on 1/20 