Bluesky and enshittification

Cory "would like to use Bluesky... [but] I will never again devote my energies to building up an audience on a platform whose management can sever my relationship to that audience at will".

Despite Bluesky's assurances, he maintains enshittification always happens. Others too "did care about their users... [but] when push came to shove, they chose the worsening of their services as the lesser of two evils.

The other evil can be pretty terminal - eg you're about to be shut down by your investors, "who demand that you compromise on privacy, or integrity, or quality... are you really going to stand on principle? What about all the users who won’t be harmed by the compromise, but will have their communities and online lives shattered if you shut down the company?". Add to them your colleagues and employees. So you tell yourself "I can only make the service better for its users if the service still exists.”"

"I don’t join a service that I can’t leave without switching costs ... my Ulysses Pact", a term "from the world of behavioral economics... Whenever you take a measure during a moment of strength that guards against your own future self’s weakness".

He still believes in the Fediverse, although I'm not sure that the Fediverse's portability advantage is not shared by Bluesky: "Bluesky lacks the one federated feature that is absolutely necessary for me to trust it: the ability to leave Bluesky and go to another host", although it's apparently on their roadmap.

His concerns are heightened by Bluesky's VCs, “Blockchain Capital, which... might as well be “Grifty Scam Caveat Emptor Capital”)". But the problem is not VCs per se, as "A VC that understands that they can force you to wreck your users’ lives is always in danger of doing so", but if they know this will cause all users to flee elsewhere, they won't (or they won't back you in the first place).