alt Hacker NewsThis 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.
Replies
> the internet, DNS, email, and the web were largely built by VC-backed companies
Really ?
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.
>Large decentralized infrastructure like the internet, DNS, email, and the web was largely built by VC-backed companies.
The poor need the rich to start a company as banks are prevented (by the rich) from lending to them.
The rich like VC as it's a tax write-off, they invest in VCs and get even more richer.
Most startups fail, the VC's investors get any leftovers and poor founder walks off empty.
>What about when things go wrong?
In general, if you lose money on an investment, you can offset that “capital loss” against a capital gain you have from something else.
https://www.venturesouth.vc/write-offs