But how is that 'decentralized' which was the entire point of Bluesky and the AT protocol to begin with? We're just back to running centralized services. Without decentralization this is just XMPP with extra steps. You might as well just run something like Movim and save yourself the hassle.
There's "decentralized" in the sense that every device runs the whole stack. In an analogy to another protocol, this would be like running SMTP and IMAP on your phone and laptop.
Then there's "decentralized" in the sense that the protocols that govern are open and anyone can plug in without permission. This is how email works in practice. Most people do not choose to run their own email servers, but they nonetheless benefit from the fact that people who are interested can do so and provide email service.
There are some people in other networks who feel very strongly their answer is the right answer to the great question of decentralization [insert south park atheist otters]. I think they are in part frustrated that ATProto (not the "right" answer) has attracted the users and developer. The meanness and lack of curiosity certainly provide the undertones to justify this interpretation.
Purists. There are some people who run email for their personal domains on Raspberry Pi machines sitting in their homes. Maybe they want everyone to live the same way?
Personally, I think it's better that there is choice. I do not want to run my own social media site any more than I wanted to run an IRC server.
is really to find a good enough middle ground that has competitive enough UX to get people off of the fully centralized, locked in social media providers. In the broader context, ATProto to me means user choice and provenance, which ATProto does better than any other protocol. See all the parts beyond just data hosting, where the entire distributed system is plug-n-play. [1]
ATProto not being purist, preferring pragmatism, is what attracts me over alternatives like AP and Nostr.
If you are sick of AI music just start stealing it. AI generated media is not copyrightable. The people shoveling all this AI music can't claim ownership of it. It's generated from models trained on copyrighted content. Also wholly generated media is not covered under copyright laws to begin with if a human wasn't involved in it's creation.
So just start reposting and monetizing music from AI generated 'artists. Undermine it's value and the market for it. Eventually the time and cost of producing it would be more than the profits someone could generate monetizing it. Then people will stop wasting their time on it.
Why wouldn't I assume they're just going to screw over their paid customers too? Now ask me why I would never pay for YouTube Premium. And there's your answer. You're actively discouraging people from giving you their money which was the entire purpose of having a business to begin with.
The hell did I just read? This is a blatant straw man argument that cherry picks quotes with no relation to politics then falsely attributes the opinions expressed to some perceived political view. AI could have cooked up a better argument for itself.
Which I found amazing when one of Musk's tweets to defend himself was to say that if he wanted to have creepy sex parties he could just throw them himself and not need a loser like Epstein involved.
Dr. Oz is a con artist, fraud and possibly a pedophile because he was just named in the Epstein files too. No one should be even so much as entertaining anything this man says.
The solution is to regulate insurance companies so these communities could actually afford healthcare and expand social programs for rural areas.
Youtube isn't doing that for your health. It's so they're not wasting ads and bandwidth on users who aren't watching anymore to maximize their profits. The sole purpose of a for-profit corporation is to generate revenue for its owners and shareholders. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Do not expect anything different. Corporations only care so long as its profitable.
reply