This is great. The entire idea of AT is that users can move their data for any reason. We want more of this.
But I do think it's always worth pushing back a bit on this idea:
> "The way Bluesky is funded is at odds with the idea of decentralisation because the platform relies on venture capital and operates under a shareholder model."
Large decentralized infrastructure like the internet, DNS, email, and the web was largely built by VC-backed companies.
The most important open source project, Linux, is funded by major tech companies through the Linux Foundation, with $311 million last year.
Corporate incentives do create conflicts, so it makes sense to be paranoid and skeptical. But the idea that companies can't contribute to open and decentralized systems is exactly the wrong lesson to learn.
We want more VC-backed startups working on open social networks and protocols. It would be great if many of them were in Europe.
>The poor need the rich to start a company as banks are prevented (by the rich) from lending to them.
no. the banks hold the poor's money, and it needs to do so without risk because the poor need their money. lending money to start companies that are completly unsecured is too risky for banks, they lend money to buy houses which is secured debt.
Banks lend against homes as the state guarantees the housing market is too big to fail and will bail them out.
Banks often lend at low LTV ratios because the prices are inflated so people on normal salaries can't actually afford to put down a large deposit, which means a slight drop puts them into negative equity but the banks are not concerned as they are protected.
If the state chose to underwrite startups in the same way...
"Commercialized" is probably the word you want, and I'd agree with.
It turns out that commercialization is most of the work of creating a globally decentralized system. Which doesn't mean the non-commercial work wasn't critical.
There were famously government and university programs that played important early roles too. But it was largely people working for companies that actually built these systems.
What organizations do you think created the switches, routers, servers, software, fiber optic backbones? Who created the new protocols?
It was companies like AT&T/Bell Labs, Cisco, 3Com, Sun, UUNET, Netscape, AOL, the major telecoms, and a thousand other companies we don't remember.
Something like 1% inspiration from academia and government, and 99% perspiration by people working inside companies.
I am sure that DARPA, BBN, USC Information Sciences Institute, and many others will be overjoyed to learn that they've been erased from history by the new narrative that Venture Capitalists Built Everything. (-:
Initially, yes, and then they became an important commercial internet service and backbone provider. They were quickly joined by a huge wave of other private companies, almost all VC-backed.
Internet Archive? Non profit. Let's Encrypt? Non profit. ICANN? Non profit. Linux Foundation? Non profit.
VC funding is fine in some contexts, but most of the stack should be non profit driven whenever possible to prevent the eventual enshittification and attempts at capture by profit driven actors. You can always donate to the relevant non profit (code, time, fiat), but by operating the public good as a non profit, you're creating a form of security boundary and reducing attack surface by economic threat actors. Worst case, the VC funded enterprise fails open and the only harm is employees who need to find new jobs and shareholders and investors who experience a capital loss.
We want to continue to own the commons and culture collectively when for profit companies building on public social infrastructure ("open social networks and protocols") close or a suboptimal change of ownership occurs.
Indeed! And that's okay. The money pays the bills, but they do not have control over the non profit. Assuming good faith and no fraud, the money, once given to the non profit, cannot be clawed back by anyone in the future (investors, shareholders, creditors, future owners, etc). They remain "on mission" regardless of what happens to the for profit that provided funding in some capacity. Funding the non profit is a one way transfer of value across a security boundary of control.
But I do think it's always worth pushing back a bit on this idea:
> "The way Bluesky is funded is at odds with the idea of decentralisation because the platform relies on venture capital and operates under a shareholder model."
Large decentralized infrastructure like the internet, DNS, email, and the web was largely built by VC-backed companies.
The most important open source project, Linux, is funded by major tech companies through the Linux Foundation, with $311 million last year.
Corporate incentives do create conflicts, so it makes sense to be paranoid and skeptical. But the idea that companies can't contribute to open and decentralized systems is exactly the wrong lesson to learn.
We want more VC-backed startups working on open social networks and protocols. It would be great if many of them were in Europe.