They constantly say they are a Public benefit corporation but there is no actual difference between that an a corporation. This leads to people assuming some kind of benevolence.
replyIf you need a reference measure of "Public Benefit Corporation", Anthropic is one too.
replyNah, that's Nostr. fiatjaf created it but doesn't hold any actual authority. All the extensions are community-driven.
replyYou're thinking of mastodon, and even that had a lead: https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/19/mastodon_ceo_steps_do...
replyI'm not going to speak for OP, but I definitely remember it also being a rallying cry for Bluesky too. "No one person can control the network blah blah blah"
replyThat's not at all incompatible with Bluesky having a funded company with a CEO.
replyThe term they use for this is "credible exit" - designing the entire protocol such that if the company itself misbehaves the affected users can leave to a separate instance without losing their relationships or data.
Bluesky's claims of being decentralised were always way way ahead of the de-facto reality of it. That's not the same as Mastodon.
replyIt has been a "rallying cry" but it doesn't stand up to much scrutiny of how Bluesky actually functions: an "open protocol" with one central server means little. Maybe this will change at some point in the future, and maybe it is changing, see https://blacksky.community/ . But this is not the same as Mastodon, where it's been that way for a while.