BlueSky ushers in a new era of social media with proprietary algorithms

Bluesky sign-ups continue to grow

Anna Barclay/Getty Images

As a technology reporter, I like to think of myself as an early adopter. I first signed up for the social network Bluesky about 18 months ago, when the platform saw a small spike in users dissatisfied with Elon Musk’s approach to what was then still called Twitter. Ta.

It didn’t stick. Like many people, I found Twitter too tempting and deleted my Bluesky account, but it has returned in recent weeks. I’m not alone. Xodus began as Musk continues to transform his social platform, now called X, while taking on a role in President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming administration. Blue Sky acquired 12 million users in 2 months which is approaching 20 million users. This time I’m going to stay here – and I think others will too.

The main reason is that I want to have a social media experience without being bombarded with hate speech, gore, and porn videos. All of these have been complaints from X users in recent months. But I also have my eye on Bluesky. Because we think this signals a more fundamental change in how social media works.

Social media algorithms, the computer code that determines what each user sees, have long been a source of controversy. Fears of disappearing down the “rabbit hole” of radicalization, or of becoming trapped in an “echo chamber” of consensual and sometimes conspiratorial viewpoints, have dominated the scientific literature.

Displaying information from followers in chronological order creates a confusing quagmire for the average user to process, so using algorithms to filter information has become the norm. Sorting and filtering what’s important or what’s likely to keep users interested has been key to the success of platforms like Facebook, X, and Instagram.

But by controlling these algorithms, we can have a huge say in what people read. One of the problems many users have with X is its “For you” algorithm. Under Musk, comments by and about him appear to be pushed into users’ timelines, even if they don’t directly follow him.

Bluesky’s approach is not to do away with algorithms, but instead to have more than the average social network. in Blog Posts in 2023 Bluesky CEO Jay Graber outlined the ethos of the platform. Bluesky is promoting a “market of algorithms” rather than a single “master algorithm”, she wrote.

In practice, this means users will be able to see posts from users they follow on the app, and will be Bluesky’s default standard view. But they can also choose to see What is popular among your friends? selects posts that your peers will enjoy based on an algorithm. There is Feed exclusively for scientists curated by people who work in or work in the field. to promote black voices often decimated by algorithmic filtering.

Specifically one feed Promoting “Quiet Posters” – Users who post infrequently and whose opinions are drowned out by users who share all their opinions with their followers.

This menu of options allows Bluesky to serve the dual purpose of bridging the past and future eras of social media. The platform has the potential to function as a “de facto public town square” once it reaches a certain number of users. Musk’s Twitter dubbing before he buys it. Given that X has steered toward excluding many mainstream voices, and competitors like Threads have chosen to avoid promoting politics and current events, perhaps Bluesky will have a place in such a forum. It is probably the only one left.

But beyond feeds, Bluesky lets you tailor the app to your needs through other elements, like a starter pack of recommended users to jump-start your niche, and blocking tools to silence unruly voices. You can also.

No doubt, there are still problems. Finding the right feed for you can be difficult, but creating your own is even more complicated and requires third-party tools. But it’s exciting to be able to see the big picture of public conversations and delve into smaller debates within wider clusters and communities of society. This is a new social media model where users, rather than large corporations or mysterious individuals, control what they see. And if Bluesky continues to add users, it could become the norm. Come with me – I @stokel.bsky.social.

Chris Stokel-Walker is a freelance technology journalist.

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

The ongoing battle between open source and proprietary software

Every time chaos breaks out Millions of people rely on this unique technology, and many people’s default reaction seems to be:Hey, let’s see what the open source world has to offer

Case in point: the steady demise of X (Twitter) since Elon Musk took over last year has led many to look for more “open” alternatives, whether it’s Mastodon or Bluesky.

This scenario will become familiar throughout 2023, as established technologies that millions of people rely on reach a chaotic curve, and how indebted people become to proprietary platforms over which they have little control. now recognized.

The OpenAI debacle in November, in which the ChatGPT hitmaker temporarily lost its co-founders, including CEO Sam Altman, sparked five days of turmoil before Altman returned to the OpenAI hot seat. It has arrived. However, only after the emergence of companies that built products on OpenAI’s GPT-X Large-Scale Language Model (LLM). I started having doubts. That’s the wisdom of going all-in on OpenAI, as it puts you in a better position to take advantage of “open” alternatives such as Meta’s Llama-branded LLM family.

Even Google seems to acknowledge that “open” may trump “proprietary” AI. leaked An internal memo written by researchers expressed concerns that open source AI was gaining the upper hand. “We don’t have a moat, and neither does OpenAI,” the memo said.

Elsewhere, Adobe’s $20 billion acquisition of rival Figma was a boon for PenPot, an open source challenger to Figma, although the deal fell through due to regulatory headwinds. PenPot saw a surge in registrations amidst a mad panic that Adobe was about to wreak havoc on businesses. About Figma’s proverbial parade.

And when the cross-platform game engine Unity announced; Controversial new fee structure, developers were furious, calling the change breaking and unfair. In the aftermath, Unity quickly pivoted, but only after its developer community expanded widely. Checkout has started open source rivals godotnow commercial companies are also promoting core development.

But while all this has served to highlight the eternal struggle between open source and proprietary software realms, At the inner The open source community is back in the spotlight. Usually, the root cause of the uproar is a proprietary company.

(not) open source elements

Back in August, HashiCorp switched We’ve moved the popular “infrastructure as code” software Terraform from a “copyleft” open source license to a business source license (BSL or, in some cases, BUSL) available at source. This places greater restrictions on how third parties can commercialize the software, especially if they can. It competes with HashiCorp itself. Why the change? According to HashiCorp, some third-party vendors have benefited from Terraform’s community-driven development without giving anything in return.

This led to vendor-driven factions forking the original Terraform project and proceeding solely with OpenTF, ultimately leading to Rebranded as OpenTofu, served by the Linux Foundation As a governing body. Although HashiCorp was fully within its rights to change the license and protect its business interests, it caused anxiety among many users. According to OpenTofu manifesto:

Overnight, tens of thousands of businesses, from mom-and-pop stores to Fortune 500 companies, woke up to a new reality: The foundation of their infrastructure suddenly became a potential legal risk. His BUSL and additional usage permissions created by the HashiCorp team are ambiguous. All companies, vendors, and developers currently using Terraform must consider whether what they are doing is considered to be in competition with his HashiCorp’s products.

Of course, HashiCorp isn’t the first company to make such a change.App performance management (APM) platform guard Switched from open source BSD 3-Clause License It moved to BSL in 2019 for similar reasons cited by HashiCorp. But this year, Sentry created an entirely new license called the Functional Source License (FSL) aimed at “giving freedom without harmful free riders,” the company said at the time. This is similar to his BSL, but with some adjustments. For example, an FSL licensed product automatically reverts to the open source Apache license after 2 years, but with BSL it takes 4 years.

This once again highlights the persistent struggle of companies to embrace the spirit of open source without compromising commercial interests.

“There’s been a long history of companies with deeper pockets and more resources leveraging traditional open source companies,” says Sentry’s head of open source. chad whitaker he said in November. “Open source companies, regardless of licensing or pedantic definitions, are increasingly dependent on support from venture-backed, commercial, or, more importantly, companies that rely on their code. ”

And similar Grafana before thatElement has moved its decentralized communications protocol Matrix from the fully permissive Apache 2.0 license to the less permissive AGPL open source license. This forces all derivative projects to maintain the exact same license, which is a huge deterrent to commercial companies looking to develop their own products.

At a time when other companies’ business models were designed around developing their own Matrix-based software, Element realized that the cost of maintaining the Matrix, to which it is largely responsible, was He said he was forced to take on costs that he did not have to incur. To maintain the matrix. “While we have succeeded in making Matrix a huge success, Element is losing its ability to compete in the very ecosystem it has created,” the company wrote at the time.

This license change effectively meant that companies using Matrix would either have to contribute code to the project or pay a commercial license to Element in order to continue using it in their own products.

So, on the one hand, businesses, consumers, and developers alike are seeing that going all-in on proprietary platforms can lead to vendor lock-in and dire consequences if things break down. I’m doing it. But on the other hand, companies built on solid open source foundations can easily move up the ladder by changing contract terms in the name of commercial protectionism.

Of course, all this is nothing new. But the past 12 months have highlighted both the power and danger of open source software.

Source: techcrunch.com