Asklemmy

45245 readers

979 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

121

What's wrong with bluesky? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 2 months ago by Stomata@sh.itjust.works to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

142 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Seriously i have zero idea what is going on with bluesky. I never used it. Why are people saying it's centralised? I also heard that a lot of people are joining it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 34 points 2 months ago (9 children)

It's slightly more than a green(blue?)washed Twatter.

The fact it's getting such a stellar rise over Mastodon is imho a bit sus - people behind it have coin & reach (political), I'm sure monies are being pumped into the bluesky sensationalization, like influences & media articles.

Twatter has/had a lot of monetization potential & now is even more of a (really incredibly direct) political-tool, there are bound to be interest groups that would benefit from cutting it a bit. But all of them want more monies, so they ofc won't help fossy things.

[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 57 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (8 children)

Having used both, here my view on why BlueSky is outstripping Mastadon:

It is instantly familiar in operation to anyone who has used Twitter. It looks and feels almost the same to use in a way that Mastadon doesn't (arguable whether that's a good thing or not, but it makes for a comfortable transition).
There's no messing around with instances to negotiate - you go to bsky.app ~~BlueSky.com~~ and it just works. Hard to overstate how important that is in retaining people who take a look at a new platform.
There are a lot of people on it, it doesn't feel empty like I have often found Mastadon.
There are a lot of relatively influential people on it, media people, authors and actors and comedians, who have largely shifted as a single mass (probably due to the three above reasons) - so for non-famous people there's a sense of being in touch with what's happening.
It's riding a wave of positivity about itself, which Mastadon never had - this touches on your point about media coverage of it, but whether that's really due to money being paid to news orgs or just due to journalists seeing what they are doing as being important for others to know about is open to question.

I think the various high profile organisational defections to BS have been a big part of it too. I only looked at BS for the first time when I saw the story about the Guardian newspaper quitting Twitter.

I took a look, created an account and was posting and following people within seconds, it was just really, really smooth. Again, that was not the case (for me) with Mastadon, where it took a while to figure some of it out, and it all just felt a bit fiddly and complicated.

Much like Lemmy in fact, after leaving Reddit - but again there was enough of a swell of new people shifting as a mass that it felt like it was worth the hassle.

[–] desentizised@lemm.ee 18 points 2 months ago

This is the only take based in reality. Nobody (except us) cares about openness, federation or business models. What matters are ease of use and adoption.

Of course that doesn't mean that the other takes are missing the mark in terms of history possibly repeating itself in the future. But if it does, that just means that (as is to be expected) the people don't make momentary decisions with a bigger (collective) picture in mind. Design needs to address individual needs first and foremost especially when it comes to social media.

Nobody joins a platform to beat corporate ownership of people's digital lives. BlueSky manufactured adoption by starting out as an invite-only cool kids club. Having to pick a fediverse instance is an entry barrier. There will always be a lot less money to throw around when you're trying to create something under the umbrella of freedom and openness. I don't see how these movements could ever win, even if they provide an arguably better product.

load more comments (7 replies)