Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
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 Well, the tech aspect is interesting, but let's also discuss the UI experience. The BlueSky interface is much more rewarding to the user as we get to see much more content.
BlueSky is a centralised social network, it is on one instance like Twitter or Facebook. It's inherently easier to navigate a single instance network, but it comes at the cost of making it ultra-easy to be bought out, Musk etc could buy it any time.
The BlueSky interface is paid for by selling itself to VC investors. The VCs will then be demanding lots of monetisation once they've gathered enough users. They're on the path to becoming as bad as Twitter or Facebook because of this.
@FediTips Should that happen, I'll jump, just like I bailed from Twatter. Meanwhile, I find much more progressive content on BlueSky & my posts are much more effective.
It's totally your call what you do, I'm not trying to condemn people's choice of platforms.
However, if we keep jumping the problem will keep repeating, and many never jump so the problem never gets solved anyway.
We have to do things differently if we want to break the cycle.
BlueSky is advertising itself as if it is breaking the cycle, the point of the post above is that they're not really breaking the cycle.
@FediTips And, given the Mastodon UI's dullness & the lack of effectiveness in posting there when compared to BlueSky, neither is Mastodon.