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 Probably worth mentioning at some point that the design for interop between platform corporations is pure vapor at this point and there are no real efforts underway to implement it.
Even if it was real, BlueSky could simply defederate from everyone as they have such a large share of the userbase. This is what Facebook did with XMPP interoperability, they kept it internally but switched off all external connections.
@FediTips @janxdevil I am getting your point and of course, I promote Fediverse as much as I can.
But there are definitely reasons why users prefer BlueSky massively. I am not sure about their MAU, because they are centralized service, there is no way to verify independently, but they may be easily 10 times our MAU.
I think the need to choose the instance is not the main problem of Mastodon and Fediverse. It is quite easy to explain to newbies. The problem is quite simple and straighforward: it is UX focused on power users.
There are too many new concepts to learn. There is no reason, why end users should have to even know about federation: it is the implementation, that matters. Backfilling history of toots and timeline of other instances instead of "opening original page". Starter packs (ie. easy sharing of user-generated lists - no CSV imports). Propper scanning for all replies (somehow). Better search feature. Better explore feature...
Also, even if Mastodon may be the best ActivityPub client so far, it is definitely not for everyone. It is quite complex chunk of code. The frontend is written in JavaScript, which is of course very standard and it is my fault I am not more familliar with it. But Ruby is pretty oldschool server side language and not among the most popular. This makes the backend quite unreadable... although probably still better, than node.js
Anyway, it is not easy for me to participate in development of neither frontend nor backend of Mastodon.
Writing completely different Fediverse application would be probably hard and I definitely don't feel one should attempt it as one man show. The team would need to start with such ActivityPub implementation, which would fix the issues like replies, and then maybe work with W3C to standardize account list sharing, so other Fedi implementations can join.
Good cellphone app would be a must. It would have to come with good instance selector. Etc.
If you care about MAU, why not just join Twitter, Facebook, Instagram etc? They have much bigger MAUs than BlueSky.
What exactly is the point of joining BlueSky at all as it is going down exactly the same path as Twitter, Facebook etc? What advantage is there to users?
@FediTips @xChaos @janxdevil It could be that these 12M+ people just don't agree that it is going down exactly the same path as Twitter, Facebook etc?…
You brought up MAUs as a reason to be on Bluesky.
I replied that if MAUs are your main concern, you can get even higher MAUs on Twitter etc.
As for going down the path, it's a matter of fact that Bluesky has adopted the same structure as Twitter, Facebook etc. Pretending it hasn't doesn't change this fact.
@FediTips @xChaos @janxdevil I didn't bring it up, @xChaos did
Ahh apoloiges My mistake, sorry.
@FediTips @mackuba @janxdevil All I said is that many Bluesky users are quite nice and they have chosen the platform because lot of people went there and because it was straightforward to use.
I did my best, but Mastodon is simply not user friendly enough for most people. It offers some quite advanced features for power users, but at the same time, it lacks certain basics, which newbies would take for granted. The don't care about the architecture of the network, as long as they don't have to think about it.
We need to keep on trying and one day, Bluesky may seem boring to some and they will move here...
Ordinary users are attracted to a well-funded simple platform.
The trouble is this simplicity is what makes it easy for Musk etc to buy it out. And the massive amount of funding is what will eventually force it to start exploiting and manipulating its users, because the funding comes from selling itself to the funders.
There is no perfect solution, there are just a range of most or least worst options. It's up to each person to decide what is least worst for them.
@FediTips yes, BlueSky is going to be bought out eventually. But maybe people already got used to being digital nomads and they will just move again, when it happens.
I created separate list of bridged BlueSky accounts and they just seem to use it and don't think about it too much. Maybe we are too meta here...
(and also, the funding of Fedi instances is open issue... small instances are admin sponsored, but as the instances grow, they may easily reach the point, when they will be too big to be sponsored but still too small to raise funds... we will see.... I wrote python scripts, which crawl explore Mastodon compatible Fedi on various TLDs and and I am going to put the charts online soon...)
@xChaos @FediTips @mackuba @janxdevil from my vantage point many of them didn't leave Twitter for so long. well after they were obviously hostages. it was a huge deal and took an insane amount of abuse to get them to leave.
when they went over the BlueSky they had to start over, and when they leave BlueSky they'll have to start over again. they chose it anyway despite many of us advocating otherwise
so they're not going anywhere. they are accustomed to abuse, and they will gleefully accept whatever blue skies terms are for far longer than any of us would
my 2c.