People didn’t go to Bluesky because of an informed choice based on features or security. People went to Bluesky because that’s where everyone they want to follow went.
But Bluesky does have a lot better features when it comes to actually effectively using the platform. Getting set up on Bluesky is orders of magnitude easier than Mastodon, and I do think that’s a big part of why it’s become the preferred destination recently. Mastodon had a real shot early on but didn’t make it easy enough for people.
I know you’ll get blowback for this, eye rolls and such about how it’s not that hard, but I’ve been building social software for ordinary humans for almost 25 years and you are quite correct. Honestly the Mastodon PR itself was too complex. Anytime you heard about it, you heard not about what a hot social destination it is, but how cool its distributed technology model is and that shit just flies over most peoples heads and actually scares them into think it will be complex and hard. Then you prompt them to choose an instance and it’s just game over. Ordinary users have the attention span of a fruit fly.
You’re 100% right. I’m a technical person and until I started diving deep into my journey to manage my privacy better, I didn’t understand the appeal. NOW I do but to others points, when I first started looking to just leave Twitter, the people I followed were on Bluesky. I can’t find many people on mastodon.
I don’t think I do… what I explained was, Mastodon is too difficult not because of the interface, it’s because it’s too decentralized, to the point of everyone getting lost in the forest, and no one can find each other within the networks.
As for Bluesky, while it’s not the best or safest alternative, is way more convenient for networking—the raison d’être of a social network.
No one is arguing about that. None of that matters when BlueSky turns into the next Xitter. Your social network is irrelevant when you can’t even find those people in a feed full of ads for weight loss supplements and unchecked disinformation.
Maybe they have more users for the same reason you’re sick of hearing how much easier it is than Mastodon: because it’s easier than Mastodon. Users didn’t spontaneously materialize on BlueSky.
Not setting up an account, that’s roughly the same. Adding contacts by topic, blocking topics and people with bad agendas en masse, etc. I started my Mastodon account almost a year before Bluesky. In Bluesky I had something useful in a week. In Mastodon I still don’t (and it’s not for lack of effort).
You can convenience or security, never both. Unfortunately bluesky’s compromises towards convenience hurt it’s security measures against enshittification
For me it’s the difference between something that’s usable for its purpose and something that’s not. As much as I wanted to use Mastodon and tried, it just never got off the ground. If Mastodon introduced starter packs, subscribable block lists, topic tagging and blocks, etc. I would use it in the same way I do Bluesky. But it hasn’t done that so I don’t.
Hell I wouldn’t even say that… they don’t understand it, they don’t care to understand it, they don’t know or care what federated means. They went there because, it’s not currently nazified twitter.
I get that it’s “technically” federated… but practically it’s for all practical purposes just a proprietary program, run by a group that isn’t currently horrific. Unfortunately everything I see in it says, it’s every bit as vulnerable, and it can be good for as long as the owners care about not becoming a nazi propoganda machine. Actual recourse from it going evil… is non existant.
People didn’t go to Bluesky because of an informed choice based on features or security. People went to Bluesky because that’s where everyone they want to follow went.
But Bluesky does have a lot better features when it comes to actually effectively using the platform. Getting set up on Bluesky is orders of magnitude easier than Mastodon, and I do think that’s a big part of why it’s become the preferred destination recently. Mastodon had a real shot early on but didn’t make it easy enough for people.
I know you’ll get blowback for this, eye rolls and such about how it’s not that hard, but I’ve been building social software for ordinary humans for almost 25 years and you are quite correct. Honestly the Mastodon PR itself was too complex. Anytime you heard about it, you heard not about what a hot social destination it is, but how cool its distributed technology model is and that shit just flies over most peoples heads and actually scares them into think it will be complex and hard. Then you prompt them to choose an instance and it’s just game over. Ordinary users have the attention span of a fruit fly.
You’re 100% right. I’m a technical person and until I started diving deep into my journey to manage my privacy better, I didn’t understand the appeal. NOW I do but to others points, when I first started looking to just leave Twitter, the people I followed were on Bluesky. I can’t find many people on mastodon.
I’m so tired of hearing this. Just click the mastodon.social button in the app and it’s not any different.
I’ve been on Mastodon for two years now. I’m active and all.
And yet, to this date, I still can’t find a single person in my working field, who are located within the province of Quebec.
Bluesky? Found and added over a hundred, in mere days.
Yeah I mean you’re making my point here. More marketshare = more leverage over users.
I don’t think I do… what I explained was, Mastodon is too difficult not because of the interface, it’s because it’s too decentralized, to the point of everyone getting lost in the forest, and no one can find each other within the networks.
As for Bluesky, while it’s not the best or safest alternative, is way more convenient for networking—the raison d’être of a social network.
No one is arguing about that. None of that matters when BlueSky turns into the next Xitter. Your social network is irrelevant when you can’t even find those people in a feed full of ads for weight loss supplements and unchecked disinformation.
I know that. And I do believe Mastodon is superior tech-wise, safer and better.
But, at this moment, the people I look to reach are on Bluesky, none are on Mastodon.
Again, that is not the discussion we are having.
Maybe they have more users for the same reason you’re sick of hearing how much easier it is than Mastodon: because it’s easier than Mastodon. Users didn’t spontaneously materialize on BlueSky.
Okay but…it’s not.
Not setting up an account, that’s roughly the same. Adding contacts by topic, blocking topics and people with bad agendas en masse, etc. I started my Mastodon account almost a year before Bluesky. In Bluesky I had something useful in a week. In Mastodon I still don’t (and it’s not for lack of effort).
Wouldn’t that mean everyone is centralized on the same instance? I don’t use Mastodon so I don’t know if it’s the same as here…
Not everyone. Just those users who don’t care enough to be picky. I wish they would rotate the instances but this is better than nothing.
Sorry what do you mean? I see users posting from other instances in my mastodon app (I haven’t used it much).
Sorry, what do you mean?
Which would indicate that
is incorrect.
Idk this whole thread confuses me. I’m on est.social instance, I’m gonna assume I see everyone who hasnt excluded my instance and vice versa…
It’s a bit more complicated than that, but yes, that’s the gist of it.
You can convenience or security, never both. Unfortunately bluesky’s compromises towards convenience hurt it’s security measures against enshittification
For me it’s the difference between something that’s usable for its purpose and something that’s not. As much as I wanted to use Mastodon and tried, it just never got off the ground. If Mastodon introduced starter packs, subscribable block lists, topic tagging and blocks, etc. I would use it in the same way I do Bluesky. But it hasn’t done that so I don’t.
Generally, yes. Strictly, no.
Bluesky isn’t Twitter. That’s all that mattered to most people. A few influential people went there first and the network effect kicked in.
Yup, the network effect is real.
Hell I wouldn’t even say that… they don’t understand it, they don’t care to understand it, they don’t know or care what federated means. They went there because, it’s not currently nazified twitter.
I get that it’s “technically” federated… but practically it’s for all practical purposes just a proprietary program, run by a group that isn’t currently horrific. Unfortunately everything I see in it says, it’s every bit as vulnerable, and it can be good for as long as the owners care about not becoming a nazi propoganda machine. Actual recourse from it going evil… is non existant.