This doesn't really answer the question *, sure clients will have various monetization models (though WTH is transactions). The issue is what is the server/Bluesky PBLLC business model?
Are they going to start putting ads in the feed? Are they going to charge users or clients for access? Stay free and make it up in volume? I have no clue, not sure anyone does either.
Just for the record, I wish Bluesky good luck. Being founded by Jack doesn't bother me. Being a Mastodon "competitor" doesn't bother me either. Seems like there's some good people working on it and if it causes more folks to stop using Twitter 2.0 that's a win in my book.
That being said I’m not going to be looking at it anytime soon, it's too early from both the API and specially # of users standpoint.
@paul I'm mostly worried about my username being squatted! I'd just like to reserve that, and then I'd see how the rest played out. They've been wildly successful at generating FOMO, for which I'm a very susceptible sucker.
@paul Judging by the speed of Ivory development, should this gain traction and exit beta and be as open as people hope it to be, I'm sure you'll have a client in no time :D For now, watch from a distance.
“…She tweeted several screenshots of the terns, including a snippet that reads "If you post any content to the Bluesky Web Services, you hereby grant Bluesky and its licensees a worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive right and license to use, reproduce, publicly display, publicly perform, modify, sublicense, and distribute the content, on or in connection with the Bluesky Web Services.”
@nonproductive
This is standard terms for any web service. Without it, they can't distribute user-generated content at all without an unquantifiable risk of legal attacks in US courts. Whether it's necessary or appropriate for a decentralized network is an intriguing question.
@nonproductive@paul This is the boilerplate to every single social network, all it means is that the network has a license to publish your content to their platform. If you don't believe me I recommend reading the terms of service of Twitter which haven't changed under new ownership. 😅 https://twitter.com/en/tos
@mergesort@nonproductive@paul They're similar to the terms of all the commercial social media platforms that monetise your content, not the terms of all social media platforms.
@paul It bothers me that there is no clarity about what his level of involvement actually is. Lots of people are running around saying he's barely involved, not making decisions, etc. Yet here he is popping up to do a Q&A about the business model.
@paul I do like the idea that IF it takes off in some way, a unified client can be built that simply supports both networks. solve fragmentation, adium style.
@paul FWIW we're working on a member-owned co-op to provide Fediverse service. The actual cost, even with assuming payment for mods and admins, looks to be very low. Now… totally not investable, but maybe very sustainable. See cosocial.info
@paul this sounds like your app made him think about mastodon in that way. Maybe allow people to post or tell people that it's a viewing program to mastodon. People in Apple review are saying the extract same thing.
@paul I imagine it would be the same as Mastodon. He is creating a protocol (vs ActivityPub), an implementation (vs Mastodon), and the plan is to make it open?
How an instance is monetized would be up to the instance owners. Some could use Patreon, subscriptions, others may go the advertising route.
@ntakayama@paul To be a tiny bit pedantic if I remember the origins right I believe the protocol was conceived to be a protocol social media platforms could build upon and interoperate with, similar to ActivityPub. That’s why they have DIDs and PDSs atop the protocol more akin to the SOLID model (or this blog post), if it was just a Twitter replacement you wouldn’t really need those. https://ruben.verborgh.org/blog/2017/12/20/paradigm-shifts-for-the-decentralized-web/
@mergesort@ntakayama@paul Jack spooled up the initiative with the intent to eventually put twitter on it. It being a separate app was mostly because of the Musk purchase.
@paul What I saw is that Dorsey regrets Trump’s banning on Twitter and under a decentralized model they would have not had to do that. It’s a cover for moderation decisions
@ntakayama@paul Ironically the exact opposite problem exists here. (Not blaming Mastodon but there’s no real answer to both of these problems at the same time.)
@mergesort@ntakayama@paul This. Funding is equally a problem for Mastodon instances, and donations are not sustainable. The reality is that neither have figured it out at this stage.
Add comment