It not necessarily about evil intentions, instead that without an easy off-ramp for users, a platform is eventually guaranteed to get enshittified, especially if they rely on investor money (which Bluesky does, see their post 1, post 2).

Cory Doctorow wrote a few pieces about the topic:

• Fool Me Twice We Don’t Get Fooled Again
• Bluesky and enshittification

There’s also StoryGraph - it’s not federated, but ran by a tiny UK company, but seems pretty popular. I like the content warnings feature and stuff like readers rating the pacing and moods of the books, which is then displayed with graphs on the book page, but they have also introduced some AI features :/ (fortunately opt-in)

check out this comment

PieFed has its own share of dodgy stuff:

• opinions of the dev are hard-coded into PieFed’s code with overreaching content blocks, and error messages deliberately lying to users
• plus a 0/5 priority of testability, 1/5 priority of reliability and 2/5 priority of security described in their architecture document

instead of Piefed :)

If only you read as far as the 4th paragraph of the article…

The experts the Guardian spoke to agreed that the US is likely to have violated the terms of the UN charter, which was signed in October 1945 and designed to prevent another conflict on the scale of the second world war. A central provision of this agreement – known as article 2(4) – rules that states must refrain from using military force against other countries and must respect their sovereignty.

Geoffrey Robertson KC, a founding head of Doughty Street Chambers and a former president of the UN war crimes court in Sierra Leone, said the attack on Venezuela was contrary to article 2(4) of the charter. “The reality is that America is in breach of the United Nations charter,” he added. “It has committed the crime of aggression, which the court at Nuremberg described as the supreme crime, it’s the worst crime of all.”

Elvira Domínguez-Redondo, a professor of international law at Kingston University, described the operation as a “crime of aggression and unlawful use of force against another country”. Susan Breau, a professor of international law and a senior associate research fellow at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, agreed that the attack could have only been considered lawful if the US had a resolution from the UN security council or was acting in self-defence. “There is just no evidence whatsoever on either of those fronts,” Breau said.

Yup, Orbán lost an election in 2002, and he couldn’t cope with it. So once he became PM again in 2010 (with a landslide majority of seats), he set to making sure he’s never kicked out of power again. Now, 15 years later, Hungary has been mostly turned into an oligarchic dictatorship, the only steps he hasn’t taken yet are disappearing people and overt application of violence :/