The European Medicines Agency (EMA), which is the regulator for vaccines and medicine in the European Union (EU), has stopped using the social media platform X. The website is owned by Elon Musk, who is an important ally of the newly elected United States president Donald Trump. The EMA, whose headquarters are based in Amsterdam, is currently the only EU organization to leave the platform.
Out of the frying pan, into the fire.
When it comes to the average person it’s more important to be willing to jump to another platform if an alternative comes up than waiting for a perfect one that will likely never appear. Repeating the cycle of joining and leaving I think is better than just staying when it comes to the average person and mainstream platforms.
Are you implying Bluesky is worse? Because that’s what that idiom means.
No, not worse. It’s just not decentralized in a meaningful sense, so it suffers from the same enshittification problems that have killed Twitter, Reddit, BoingBoing, Digg, Slashdot…
Fundamentally, it’s not any worse, but it’s not any better either.
That’s not the right idiom, then.
I don’t agree that the idiom implies “worse”. In trying to escape being burnt in the frying pan, you’re getting burnt in the fire. Either way, you’re getting burnt.
You don’t get to decide how language works.
It implies going from a bad situation to a worse one, and has from the moment it existed.
Fine. It’s not the right idiom to express the point.
Point is still valid, even if I initially expressed it poorly.
I think you, and a large number of people on this site, need to accept that the vast majority of people don’t give a shit about FOSS, and many actively view it as a bad thing.
Especially a government agency.
This isn’t about FOSS. This is about decentralization. You could make that argument on Reddit or Xitter. Not on Lemmy.
In what way?
https://dustycloud.org/blog/how-decentralized-is-bluesky/
https://torment-nexus.mathewingram.com/is-bluesky-decentralized-its-complicated/
Basically, Bluesky is not functionally decentralized, so it’s just another platform destined for either failure or enshittification.
So moving from a platform run by a far right, nazi saluting Jackass, to a platform that is building it’s user base at X’s expense is a step backwards?
Also, Bluesky is run mostly by former Twitter employees, so they know exactly what will happen if they follow in their footsteps.
Bluesky is a step sideways, not forward or back. It kicks the can down the road a few years, but the fundamental concept is doomed. It has been tried, time and time again, and the inevitable result is gross enshittification.
Given how many social media companies have collapsed over the years because they made their service worse, and their user base migrated en masse to other platforms, I don’t think it’s inevitable at all. Senior execs will be well aware of the consequences of that type of behaviour.
Don’t forget, Bluesky is rising out of the ashes of Twitter, which is a spectacular example of what not to do, and something shareholders will be terrified of.
not even just social platforms, so many businesses have risen from the ashes of similar businesses that chased off their customers, then went on to repeat the failures of their predecessors. humans, particularly in positions of power or authority, don’t learn from their own mistakes so why would they ever learn from the mistakes of others.
To which I would respond:
…it doesn’t seem that “senior execs” are capable of learning the necessary lessons. Quite the contrary, the “senior execs” and most of the (early) shareholders of all these failed companies seem to be doing quite well for themselves, long after the companies have gone belly up.
Even if they are capable of learning, they don’t seem to care.