I've had a lot of people ask how BlueSky compares to Mastodon and the Fediverse. I've tried to make the answer as simple and easy to understand as possible:
BlueSky is designed to give corporations and wealthy people full control of the network. All of its traffic has to flow through expensive-to-run corporate relays.
The Fediverse is designed to give ordinary people control of the network. All of its traffic flows directly from one cheap-to-run server to another.
@FediTips I will stick to Mastodon, but even as technical minded user, it's way more frustrating to use. I can't even see half the content that is on other Mastodon instances, let alone comfortably interact with other protocols. It's confusing and badly communicated by the UI. Things need multiple times the clicks than on bsky.
I understand the limitations, and things are getting better. But realistically there is no way an average internet user can comfortably switch to Mastodon at this point.
BlueSky isn't showing things from other instances at all though.
BlueSky is currently just a for-profit centralised single-instance social network, like Twitter or Facebook.
Even if it eventually linked to other instances (which isn't currently happening), it would be through massive corporate relays that would need to exploit user data to fund themselves.
@FediTips I understand that - and I'm not expecting bsky to stay a viable network for long (their lack of moderation will prob get them first).
But the fact that Mastodon, at it's current state, is not usable for tech-noobs, is true at the same time. I directly experienced that when trying to get some to use it.