That goon has his DNA all over bluesky, and he has a long history with elon. Cling to semantics if you need to, but the spirit of what I said was true. If they could get away with the optics of dorsey heading bluesky in that “exodus” moment, they would have. But all knew that would leave a bad taste in the public’s mouth and slow/stall adoption, so they had the charade they presented.
Cling to semantics if you need to, but the spirit of what I said was true.
Is it?
Doesn’t seem a valid argument.
Hitler embraced the construction of the autobahn.
Therefore, the autobahn is evil.
operates the same way (guilt by association fallacy).
I agree bluesky “was always going to shit” for entirely different reasons like repeating the same mistakes of twitter.
Maybe you could offer a more logical argument for your conclusion instead of dragging the discussion into irrationality?
No, it doesn’t, because, you used ‘embraced’ when the it would be more accurate to say that Dorsey started and oversaw the development of BlueSky.
Hitler didn’t go fully nuts into megalomaniacal monument planning, overuling his generals, micromanaging superweapon projects, untill … what, 1942ish?
Hitler embraced the autobahn, he didn’t oversee it as an involved executive, he appointed Fritz Todt to make actual decisions and lead the project.
He also didn’t invent it or found it. It was a thing that already existed, that he thought was a good idea, despite himself having really nothing to do with its early development.
(also just ‘holy shit’ at immediately jumping to literally Hitler as a comparison. I don’t even have that much smoke for Dorsey, sheesh)
Dorsey, on the other hand, started BlueSky, and ran BlueSky the way all VC/‘Angel Investors’ run their projects: You can’t really say no to them, what they say is basically understood to be what you do… or, they leave, as Dorsey eventually did.
He was obviously frustrated that he was not being listened to, on this project that he set up.
You can’t be frustrated that people aren’t listening to you if you’re not saying things, giving guidance, suggesting policies… that people are disregarding.
Very early in Twitter’s history, Dorsey imagined that Twitter could be an open-source protocol that wasn’t controlled by anyone, instead of a venture-backed, for-profit company. But that didn’t happen. And later on, when Dorsey got frustrated while running the for-profit version of Twitter, he imagined that Twitter could help start an independent, open-source protocol version of itself — Bluesky.
But then — in Dorsey’s telling — he got frustrated that Bluesky was doing things like the old Twitter. Things like raising money, and moderating what happened on its platform, and having a board. Which Dorsey was on.
it wasn’t started by jack; it was an incubator project at twitter with the original twitter devs and jack remained on the board.
That goon has his DNA all over bluesky, and he has a long history with elon. Cling to semantics if you need to, but the spirit of what I said was true. If they could get away with the optics of dorsey heading bluesky in that “exodus” moment, they would have. But all knew that would leave a bad taste in the public’s mouth and slow/stall adoption, so they had the charade they presented.
Is it? Doesn’t seem a valid argument.
operates the same way (guilt by association fallacy). I agree bluesky “was always going to shit” for entirely different reasons like repeating the same mistakes of twitter.
Maybe you could offer a more logical argument for your conclusion instead of dragging the discussion into irrationality?
No, it doesn’t, because, you used ‘embraced’ when the it would be more accurate to say that Dorsey started and oversaw the development of BlueSky.
Hitler didn’t go fully nuts into megalomaniacal monument planning, overuling his generals, micromanaging superweapon projects, untill … what, 1942ish?
Hitler embraced the autobahn, he didn’t oversee it as an involved executive, he appointed Fritz Todt to make actual decisions and lead the project.
He also didn’t invent it or found it. It was a thing that already existed, that he thought was a good idea, despite himself having really nothing to do with its early development.
(also just ‘holy shit’ at immediately jumping to literally Hitler as a comparison. I don’t even have that much smoke for Dorsey, sheesh)
Dorsey, on the other hand, started BlueSky, and ran BlueSky the way all VC/‘Angel Investors’ run their projects: You can’t really say no to them, what they say is basically understood to be what you do… or, they leave, as Dorsey eventually did.
He was obviously frustrated that he was not being listened to, on this project that he set up.
You can’t be frustrated that people aren’t listening to you if you’re not saying things, giving guidance, suggesting policies… that people are disregarding.
https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-dorsey-bluesky-twiiter-nostr-interview-2024-5
https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/jack-dorsey-reveals-why-he-left-bluesky-deleted-account/473992
I really have no idea how anyone can pretend that BlueSky wasn’t Dorsey’s idea, his project, his baby.
Oh wait, no, I know.
If thing becomes bad, then person I like wasn’t actually involved with it that much, therefore person I like is not bad.