Basically people like you are blind to the reason as to why bluesky and not mastodon is getting all the twitter runaways.
Bluesky absolutely provides a better, more cohesive and centralised experience than most of the fediverse microblog alternatives.
That’s why it’s getting more people
But the reason it can do that is because it’s centralised, with federation tacked on. And that centralisation means it’s most likely going to go through the same cycle of enshittification as twitter, facebook, reddit etc. Twitter was great to use back in the day. Reddit was great to use back in the day. Then they got large captive audiences that couldn’t leave because of the network effect, and instead of trying to make the platforms attractive to new people, they started to bleed their existing customers for value at the expense of their user experience, because those people had nowhere else they could easily go.
Bluesky will go down that same path if they get a critical mass of users and stop being the “alternative” to twitter.
Mastodon and the fediverse will always be an alternative at best, because they can’t compete with the experience of using a centralised network. But the Fediverse platforms don’t suffer from the vulnerability of centralised networks and their path to enshittification. And for me, that’s going to keep me here.
The only way I’ll move to Bluesky is if they truly embrace decentralisation to the point where the platform/network could exist without them.
I think GP has one or two good points about shortcomings of the existing distributed platforms, but I also think these things can be addressed. For example, a centralized system’s single namespace for usernames brings advantages for both identity and usability. This would be harder for a distributed system to implement, of course, but it’s not impossible.
Bluesky absolutely provides a better, more cohesive and centralised experience than most of the fediverse microblog alternatives.
That’s why it’s getting more people
But the reason it can do that is because it’s centralised, with federation tacked on. And that centralisation means it’s most likely going to go through the same cycle of enshittification as twitter, facebook, reddit etc. Twitter was great to use back in the day. Reddit was great to use back in the day. Then they got large captive audiences that couldn’t leave because of the network effect, and instead of trying to make the platforms attractive to new people, they started to bleed their existing customers for value at the expense of their user experience, because those people had nowhere else they could easily go.
Bluesky will go down that same path if they get a critical mass of users and stop being the “alternative” to twitter.
Mastodon and the fediverse will always be an alternative at best, because they can’t compete with the experience of using a centralised network. But the Fediverse platforms don’t suffer from the vulnerability of centralised networks and their path to enshittification. And for me, that’s going to keep me here.
The only way I’ll move to Bluesky is if they truly embrace decentralisation to the point where the platform/network could exist without them.
I’m with you.
I think GP has one or two good points about shortcomings of the existing distributed platforms, but I also think these things can be addressed. For example, a centralized system’s single namespace for usernames brings advantages for both identity and usability. This would be harder for a distributed system to implement, of course, but it’s not impossible.