I've had a lot of people ask how BlueSky compares to Mastodon and the Fediverse.

[pzwsk@mastodon.xyz]

@FediTips can you clarify for Bluesky? Are you talking about the standard or current ownership model?

[oxpal@mastodon.coffee]

@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.

[addressforbots@apcn.nz]

@FediTips @mastodonmigration apparently several people have run their own relays for personal use but it's not for the faint of heart apparently you need several terabytes of preferably solid state storage and a very fast network connection and while the code for the relay server is public it isn't terribly well documented

Take a look at these links if you'd like to learn more
https://alice.bsky.sh/post/3laega7icmi2q

Notes on Running a Full-Network atproto Relay (July 2024) | bryan newbold

These are some informal notes on setting up a full-network atproto Relay, using the bigsky relay software developed by Bluesky. This is the same software we run ourselves at https://bsky.network. The focus here is on the compute resources necessary to replicate the type of full-network, full-feature...

(whtwnd.com)

[ninjadodo@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@FediTips Failing to mention that for the average (non-tech-savvy) user Bluesky is *significantly* more user-friendly than Mastodon and the Fediverse makes this not a very honest comparison.

Mastodon has real advantages and should in an ideal world be the main social network, but it is unable to reach that critical mass because Fedi-enthusiasts refuse to look critically at what could be improved (a lot).

Usability is simply not where it needs to be to reach a wider audience.

[mcneely@indieweb.social]

@FediTips I find this picture to be misleading.

It seems to imply that users are the green dots for BlueSky and they communicate with servers (red dots) which are (so far) run by corporations. No complaints, that's all pretty accurate.

But when you use the same green dots for the Fediverse on the bottom, it seems to imply that individuals are directly connecting to each other which is NOT accurate. Servers are still intermediaries on the Fediverse. I don't believe this is a minor distinction.

[mastodonmigration@mastodon.online]

@addressforbots @FediTips

These examples really just reinforce the technical infeasibility of the entire FOF scheme.

[praxila@social.vivaldi.net]

@FediTips Thank you for the drawing chart. Make things more understandable. 🫶

[feditips@social.growyourown.services]

@rauschma

It sounds more like a hypothetical thing in a document rather than a real world thing actually being implemented.

BlueSky are a for-profit corporation dependent on VC money, and they've given their staff shares. That gives all of them a huge financial incentive to create a network that can be bought out by billionaires etc.

It's difficult to see why they would do anything to endanger their ability to sell themselves to wealthy investors.

[feditips@social.growyourown.services]

@pzwsk

The standard. Bluesky servers can't talk to each other, they have to go through relays which are substantially more expensive to run.

[feditips@social.growyourown.services]

@Praxila

Glad it works!

[feditips@social.growyourown.services]

@ninjadodo

BlueSky is easier because it's centralised, like Twitter or Facebook. And it's going down exactly the same path to become just as awful as they are, because it is structurally the same: VC backers on a centralised for-profit corporate network.

Even if they "decentralised" with the AT protocol, it would still remain in corporate control.

If someone doesn't mind them becoming awful like this, then they might as well stay on Twitter or Facebook. What's the point of moving?

[feditips@social.growyourown.services]

@McNeely

The green dots are servers, I tried to mention this in the captions and alt text?

[feditips@social.growyourown.services]

@oxpal

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@social.growyourown.services]

@maikel

Feel free to distribute if you want

[ninjadodo@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@FediTips That's just one of the reasons it's easier.

It's orders of magnitude more usable than both ex-twitter and FB and it's not run by (or overrun with) literal nazis. If you want twitter without the nazis and other shit, that's Bluesky... if you don't mind jumping through myriad technical hoops and a much smaller audience, there's Mastodon.

I'm still detecting zero willingness to look critically at Fedi and its UX issues here.

[feditips@social.growyourown.services]

@xChaos @janxdevil

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@social.growyourown.services]

@503bartley

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.

[thebluewizard@hackers.town]

@FediTips I like how you cut through a lot of tech talks (I find it of some interest though) to the highlight key basic differences that actually reveal the true nature of the architectures (one requiring big money, hence needing corporations vs. simple architecture costing little money to run). Thanks! I also am watching Spritely to see how it goes!

[feditips@social.growyourown.services]

@thebluewizard

Thanks! That was the aim, to make the explanation simple enough so everyone can see the issues at stake!

And yes, very keen to see what Spritely comes up with. 🤩

[feditips@social.growyourown.services]

@ninjadodo

"and it's not run by (or overrun with) literal nazis"

Because of the way Bluesky is structured, Musk could buy it tomorrow. There's nothing to stop Twitter happening all over again.

"If you want to be smug"

I'm not being smug, I am being deeply worried by what centralised corporate social networks have done to the world:

Rohingya sue Facebook for £150bn over Myanmar genocide

Victims in US and UK legal action accuse social media firm of failing to prevent incitement of violence

the Guardian (www.theguardian.com)

This is caused by centralised networks run for profit. It doesn't happen at first when it's building up, but it happens eventually.