> Even when Bluesky confirmed it's a DDoS, the line is now "maybe they wouldn't have gotten DDoSed if they didn't vibecode and their code was better."

The context of the "jokes", regardless of if one finds them funny, is that this is exactly how AI boosters (including the bluesky team) have been behaving.

Every little benefit, no matter how small or unfounded, was being attributed to AI usage. So people do the opposite, attributing every little problem to the use of AI.

The implied punchline being "Oh, so now you care about accuracy?"

A week or two ago, when there was a Bluesky outage and a Claude outage at the same time, people were earnestly pointing to that as evidence that Claude was somehow a load-bearing component of Bluesky, or that AI vibecoding had caused the outage... I had to just disengage but I was also very annoyed by it all.

I don't have any anecdotal data, just detecting a whiff of a possible pattern in your statement. DDoS is bots. Any chance the prevalent discourse is bots? "I ain't saying she a gold digger..."

Perhaps underestimating how much the bsky audience absolutely hate AI.

It's funny how closely bsky has replicated the dynamic of old Twitter where the people who run it and the people who use it have completely different priorities and loathe each other.

It turns out that this was, in fact, the case. They DDOS'd themselves, with a deployment of their own code - something they have separately claimed is "99% AI written" these days.

[dead]

I am not surprised. People on Bluesky are so blatantly anti-AI.

Would be funny if this nonsense came mostly from bots to distract from the fact that Bluesky isn't decentralized and thus easier to take out.

Theoretically, if the backend code is optimized enough, a DDoS attempt wouldn't lead to a denial of service since all those requests would just get served as normal. And as long as the network isn't the bottleneck, which it probably is in most cases.