Bluesky sees record signups day after Musk says X will go paid-only
Bluesky sees record signups day after Musk says X will go paid-only
The day isn't even over yet Bluesky has already seen its biggest influx of new users in a single-day
Just around 24 hours after Musk made his comments, more than 42,000 new users joined Bluesky, making it the biggest signup day yet for the currently invite-only platform that launched earlier this year.
Bluesky saw a total of 53,585 new signups by the end of Tuesday, September 19. The new users gained in that single day make up 5 percent of the platform's entire user base of 1,125,499 total accounts.
The new user signups are tracked via the third-party website "Bluesky Stats." Looking over Bluesky signup numbers on the tracker for the past month, it appears that the platform usually sees from 10,000 to 20,000 new signups per day. Bluesky has doubled its usual daily new user numbers already, with many more hours left in the day still to go.
It's impossible to know whether Musk's comments about charging users to post on X really played a role in this, but it almost certainly had some effect.
You're viewing part of a thread.
What is why it is not being "downloaded"? It seems you don't actually understand how it works. You realize we are talking on a federated network right now, yeah? You must be trolling.
It's on the android store I'm looking at the reviews right now.
Since you appear to be talking about a Mastodon mobile app and not the Mastodon network a fair bit of negative reviews are about many of the mobile apps blocking access to Gab. Gab switched to a Mastodon back end back in 2019 or so and several of the apps started to blacklist using that instance at the app level as a consequence. Usually negative reviews about that will refer to "the largest Mastodon instance", which Gab actually was by sheer numbers.
There was even an issue request to hardcode blacklisting Gab into the backend, though they were basically told no in no uncertain terms.
Oh boy, I'm looking through the code for Mastodon right now. Already located one zero day after reading 300 lines of code. Who wrote this app...
Point it out and share it with everyone. That's what FOSS is all about. I bet you won't.
Of course they won't. They're shilling their own product which is a competitor to Mastodon.
What i don't get about mastodon is that if the owner wants to pull the plug he can take away the app any time. What kind of tomfoolery is this. He can also legally sue instances he doesn't like. how can you say mastodon is decentralized.
I'm not going to entertain your buffoonery.
but it is under the: GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 Permissions of this strongest copyleft license are conditioned on making available complete source code of licensed works and modifications, which include larger works using a licensed work, under the same license. Copyright and license notices must be preserved. Contributors provide an express grant of patent rights. When a modified version is used to provide a service over a network, the complete source code of the modified version must be made available.
So he cant revoke anyone of using the software he contributes
It seems like you're deliberately misrepresenting, but I'll explain anyway because I know that some people might be confused.
The Mastodon app is a client on your phone which accesses servers in the network.
The network consists of multiple servers that are interconnected to each other. Content from one server is automatically cross-hosted to other servers when it is discovered on those other servers. That's how Federation works. I know it's probably an oversimplification of how activitypub works, but it's generally good enough for most people, and the important part is really that content is present and visible on other servers.
When you sign up to a server your account is stored on that server, the posts that you make are stored on that server, as well as automatically cross hosted to other servers which have people following you.
If the owner of a server pulls the plug for whatever reason the content on that server will no longer be directly accessible, if your account is there you will lose your account. The copies on other servers will remain as they have been copied. The rest of the network will continue operating without that server and the accounts that were hosted on it.
About asking whether or not an instance owner can sue instances they don't like, that sounds like absolute nonsense and I'm not even going to bother trying to understand whatever point you're trying to make with this.
Im on a computer not a phone. People like apps not browsers.