Unless I'm missing something else...

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.

The ironic thing is Twitter is actually the square of public debate and Bluesky is just a echo chamber just like Reddit. Just try having a debate on these platforms. You will literally get banned, your post deleted or muted.

Nothing, except make it more available.

This is why I often argue against (or at least want to point out the dangers of) the ATProto/Bluesky model.

It's an absolute boon for people who want heavy surveillance, government or otherwise.

The looseness and "unreliability" of protocols like Mastodon ironically make them safer.