bluesky was made for the purpose of decentaralized social networking, by people who wanted to do that, many with a background of working on that.<p>Then they got an unexpected rush of users from Elon buying twitter. Many/most of those users weren't coming because of bluesky's mission of decentralization -- they mainly wanted a twitter alternative, and bluesky had built one.<p>Bluesky could have, at that point, let their original decentralized ideal languish in the icebox column and said "oh well, we pivoted". Their new user base would have been mostly fine with that. Silicon Valley would have been mostly fine with that. Twitter itself has that kind of abrupt pivot in its origin story.<p>That's not what they did, though.<p>This post is a good recounting of what they did:<p><a href="https://newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com/p/bluesky" rel="nofollow">https://newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com/p/bluesky</a><p>With the size team they were working with, I think they've been punching well above their weight.<p>These are legitimate concerns but give them a chance. That funding round was announced slightly over a week ago.
So?<p>It is the way of the world that communication platforms burn out and get replaced by other platforms. Remember ICQ, AIM, CuSeeMe, Paltalk? In the 2010s Facebook got pretty smart about the cycle and has managed to postpone it but there will be a day that we talk about Twitter, Facebook and Instagram the way we talk about Kodak, Polaroid and Xerox.<p>In the meantime one can follow a multi-platform strategy and enjoy platforms while they last.