Why switch to BlueSky if you have Mastodon...
Technology
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
Why switch to Mastodon when there is Misskey?
Why use Misskey when there is Hubzilla?
In a word, audience. I'd prefer it if everyone went with Mastodon, but the audience on BlueSky is orders of magnitude bigger. I cross post to both, but only because I don't trust BlueSky not to do exactly what Twitter and Meta have done eventually.
They might do the Twitter. Jack Dorsey has already left the board saying exactly that.
These who waited until the X take over to move away are simply following trends.
Guess why? /s For real, people, some of you live in a bubble...
Cool. I'm going out on a limb and saying Bluesky seems pretty based so far. I made an account when it was announced, and it's pretty cool. Nice app, seemingly good mission statement.
I don't want to dismiss something until it actually turns to shit. If it's good now, I'll use it now. When it turns to crap, I'll just jump off. I'll always have Lemmy and Mastodon as my mains, so I don't see the harm personally. 🤷♂️ Let's just hope it'll last for the scientists' sake.
Problem is it absolutely will turn when the Bluesky owners Jay Graber and Jack Dorsey decide it's time to cash in. The project started out as a way to start decentralizing twitter, but they never actually accomplished that goal.
Why is it a problem? If a tool is good now, I'll use it now.
I don't stop myself from buying a new axe just because it'll break eventually, you know what I mean?
Although obviously if there was an axe that never would break, I'd buy that! But maybe there are trade-offs. Maybe the never-breaking axe has a complicated handle or something. I don't know, I'm trying my best with the axe analogy to describe Bluesky vs Mastodon. 😅 Hopefully it's clear enough!
We can avoid it ever becoming shit when a wannabe dictator buys it if we make it impossible to sell: like mastodon and other federated options.
How many times can people keep making the same mistake without us concluding they're stupid? Closed corporate social networks ALWAYS go to shit. Enshitification is inevitable. And you'll have the sunk cost fallacy stopping them from leaving, until they all finally get fed up and switch again. Own your network - stop swapping.
But we did leave and if (or when) it becomes enshitified, we will move again. We don't need an idealised platform, we just want something easy to use which doesn't (yet) have the baggage and culture of twiXer
But we did leave...
...about a decade too late.
Why are they selecting BlueSky over the Fediverse?
I would assume the same reason anyone chooses it over the fediverse, because they want their content to be easily discoverable.
BlueSky is specifically designed as a drop-in Twitter replacement, it’s an easy transition, and tons of Twitter users have been advertising it for a long time. The Fediverse is comparatively obscure.
also mainstream professionals are going to bluesky, like press and corp PR. big step towards critical mass.
Presumably either because they've not heard of the Fediverse, because almost nobody has, and/or because they want people to actually see what they post.
I don't understand why people ask this. Most people you talk to on Lemmy will say they don't want the userbase to grow much more than it has because with that growth comes the other problems that larger platforms like shitter and reddit have.
That's true by and large and we also don't have enough moderators here as is.
And for reasons I don't understand, people keep asking why mainstream media outlets, influencers, and other trusted accounts don't transition to the fediverse, as if they won't bring with them an influx of users (at least a fraction of which would be considered undesirable).
Why do you want them to come here? (As someone who would like to see Lemmy grow, I'm curious about how you think this will rollout and what the consequences will be). I would like to see Lemmy grow but I'm not sure all of that growth will have solely good follow-on effects.
The Fediverse experience starts with an unanswerable question: what server do you want to be on?
Most people will not have any way to answer that without knowing what the downstream impact will be. Mastodon people are working on smoothing that down, but it's still a pretty fraught question. And if half a given community ends up on one server and half on another, they get fragmented and conversations and followers fizzle out.
Bluesky wants to tell people they're not a single-node lock-in to avoid the Twitter effect, but it turns out that's their key advantage.
The only thing that will guarantee they don't end up like Twitter is if they revamp their corporate governance mechanisms, but they had to take VC money and haven't come up with a long-term revenue model, so it's not clear how they can avoid it.
For a long time now, the entry point to mastodon (joinmastodon.org) has had the default option as being "join mastodon.social", with an option to choose a different server delegated to a secondary button. This compares to bsky, which shows you a dropdown of servers to choose from, defaulting to "bluesky social".
It's a tiny difference in UI; both have a default and offer an alternative. Why do people say it's difficult on mastodon, while bluesky users are apparently not confused by the same option? Even if the option on bsky is basically a joke so far.
Good. Sucks that it took open fascism to get that to happen, but at least it happened.