Amazing. Never thought of this explanation but it makes sense.

An unusually clear explanatory article. This problem needs fixing. As a layperson it looks to me like the “discussion” mentioned needs to crystallize into a proper meeting of all stakeholders so as to get a binding decision about how to fix it.

Since I owned and used it for a year or two, yes, I did probably know one or two things about it. Better just to make your point if you have one to make.

I bought one way back in 2015. A BQ Aquaris E5, quite decent hardware, factory-installed with Ubuntu Touch. It was an absolute disaster: buggy as hell, even the most basic native apps (SMS etc) hardly worked. Obviously no way to run Android apps. Somehow I made it work for about 3 months before giving up and flashing a CyanogenMod ROM.

There was one silver lining. At one point during those 3 months I managed to lose the phone in a (completely anonymous) taxi. The interface was obviously so weird and crappy that the taxi driver actually replied to my SMS and returned the thing to me.

Any decade now it will be ready!

Fair points. My other arguments stand.

First, why jump straight to insulting accusations of bad faith? Why not just be civil and respond politely to the argument made? i.e. as you did in the 3rd sentence of your post.

The web, by definition, is open source (PS: notwithstanding Wasm and unreadable minification). That is not the case of the vast majority of mobile apps. We have few means of checking what they’re up to besides traffic analysis and trusting their creators. Apps can use lower-level device APIs than web apps and they frequently demand access to them without justification. Apps are distributed by app stores, which are under the thumb of the corporate mobile OSs. They are currently turning the screws using threats of device attestation, putting the future of the open app store F-Droid in doubt.

There are reasons that tech giants and developers alike are constantly pushing us to use apps and not the web. Disappointed (not to mention surprised) to see that some members of this forum seem to be with them.

Well done for being honest and don’t be discouraged by the (predictable) hate and scorn you’re getting for your efforts. Ahh, social media! If you had said all this in person to them, these same people would be pushing back with civility and human decency, but with the barrier of a screen they feel empowered to shout and mock. We still haven’t learned.

Personally I’m bothered by this talk of “empathy”. To me, animal welfare is an entirely different subject from biodiversity. And obviously it begs the question: what about empathy for the out-competed native creatures? Empathy can be dangerous here, IMO. For example, feral cats are a major hazard to biodiversity (not to mention their prey). This is an invasion case that is eminently solvable. Except it turns out there are a lot of humans with outsized empathy towards removedcats (see: New Zealand).

You’re within your rights to dismiss my points because I refuse to read the article, but I’m certain I’ve heard all these arguments before (including as you just outlined). Basically it’s a calque of the culture war onto science. I’d bet money the word “racist” is in it somewhere, or at least immigration. If the author is suggesting concrete ways to preserve biodiversity, then great. If it’s just to wage politics by another means (again: “prejudice”, “nativist dogma”), I’ll pass.

To be clear (and not having read the article because I know the argument already): the problem with anthropogenic species invasions is they reduce biodiversity in the short to medium term. Yes, sure, “life finds a way”, and on the 100m-year horizon everything will have recovered (perhaps on a different trajectory). But not in a timespan relevant to us. And a biosphere with less diversity is going to make things less pleasant and much harder for us, possibly quite badly and quite soon.

The article presumably recommends a more targeted and effective approach to conserving biodiversity. Fair enough if so, but words like “prejudice”, “nativist” and “dogma” are not encouraging me (personally) to give it a full hearing.

PS: if the added quotes are representative, and the author did not in fact go full “antiracist” on a topic of science, then credit for that at least. Clearly there are many cases where it makes little sense to push back against a fait accompli (Burmese pythons, cane toads, etc). But in other cases the “native” argument which so triggers the author might prove to be a useful lever for mobilizing useful action.

PPS: upvoted anyway, in the name of debate! Keep 'em coming.

What the hell is this completely random news article doing here? Seriously. Moderation needed.

OK I get all that and it’s not to be dismissed. But their product is better than what we have here. That’s why Blacksky built upon it and not upon this, despite the cost. The excessive centralization seems to be more of a human problem than a technical one. Humans take the path of least resistance and Bluesky’s resources have allowed it to make a product that the fediverse will never be able to compete with.

Personally, I get what I want here (I don’t use Bluesky) but it’s pretty clear to me that I’m not representative (in caring about the principle of decentralization) and neither are you. I’m a pragmatist by nature. Bluesky and AT Proto are an obvious improvement on Twitter. If they have the potential to be a version of decentralization that actually takes off and goes mainstream (because let’s be serious, the fediverse is not doing that), then personally I would take that win. It hasn’t happened yet but personally I’m not going to spit on it in advance like everyone here is doing.

they are in complete control of the real-world use of it

They’re not. I mentioned Blacksky.

As I understand it, their endgame is that Bluesky will be a big fish in a pond of other fish, and that the best way to get that fishpond is to make Bluesky as good a product as possible, hence the (limited) VC money.

As a strategy it has risks but so does the alternative. To make the obvious comparison, UX on the fediverse is rubbish, with an incomprehensible onboarding funnel, amateurish design, servers that keep disappearing. There’s a reason Bluesky has eaten the fediverse’s lunch.

With respect, I think people here are making this into a sterile religious war when really it’s a disagreement about strategy. Some of the people who vouch for Bluesky I have been following for years. They want exactly the same things as most people here. Personally, I see no reason to question their intentions.

Fair enough. But, as you know already, AT Protocol is not chained to Bluesky. Other things are already being built on it (Blacksky for instance). Sure, the startup costs of federation are high, but that was a technical choice. To insist that it’s all a plot to become the next evil Twitter continues to feel a bit swivel-eyed to me.

This seems to be the closest to a reasoned argument in this thread. Realistically, what should they be doing differently?

IMO this is unfair and conspiratorial. The people behind Bluesky have been quite clear about where they are trying to go (i.e. not simply replace Twitter), some of those people have a lot of credibility in this area, built up over years. Maybe they make different assumptions about tech and user preferences but I see no reason to assume evil intentions.

With this attitude you’ll get the journalism you deserve, alas.

Useful. As much as I’m comfortable with the general movements of Earth and Sun (i.e. seasons, latitudes, and so on) it’s always been a bit of a mystery what the Moon is doing.

This makes things a bit clearer.

Don’t be discouraged. Personally I don’t have the energy any more to endure the abuse of the mob (these “leftist” ignoramuses whose obsession with “Zionism” leads them to support literal fascism) but it’s important that somebody makes the points you’re making.

Meta gave up on the idea, effectively

From their perspective: not enough users to be worth the bother.

That seems to be just another example of Americans trusting their corporate overlords over everyone and everything else, including their elected governments and to some extent their own freedom.

But sure, phone numbers were once widely considered public information (along with postal addresses, which were also in the white pages - innocent times!). In Europe at least, I believe that has not be the case for about 15 years. New phone number registrations are not publicly listed anywhere.