You're viewing a single thread.
Why, oh, why, Bluesky and not Mastodon
Because Mastodon needs a reliable instance with a catchy domain name. Maybe even the slightest bit of advertising.
Someone reputable could make a real Twitter competitor for about $2m a year these days.
I'd say Mozilla, but they just took all their social media funding away and threw it at AI. Genius.
mastodon.world? mastodon.social?
Which don't exactly have the name recognition of The New York Times.
Would you worry Google would have too much influence?
I would worry that Google will simply discontinue the product abruptly. Google is unreliable with product longevity.
It's rather see NYTimes get into it. Even if they time allow outside signups on their instance.
I'd say Mozilla, but they just took all their social media funding away and threw it at AI.
Nobody was using their instance from what I heard. So a bit of a wasted effort.
What sort of money are they throwing at AI? I only know about the sidebar and that's basically just a tab to a website of your choosing. Couldn't have been expensive.
They never allowed people to use it. There was a wait-list. It never opened afaik outside of Mozilla people.
Mozilla is all in on ads actually
Mastodon has serious UX problems that even other federated networks don't have. I'm pretty well tech literate and love Lemmy, for instance, but I just couldn't ever get Mastodon to stick for me, like it just didn't have the right feel and wasn't fun to use. And if it's not working for me then it's never going to take off with a more general audience.
Bluesky is a lot better. It still has some issues that I feel keep it from fully replacing Twitter, especially Twitter before Elon screwed it up. But it does manage to keep me checking it, even though it's probably only once or twice a week max.
Cause all the Linux people, FOSS people, and communists are already here.
I think one of the biggest reasons is that the Fediverse is often a pain to get into and sometimes a pain to use.
Bluesky and Threads "just work."
Some people say it's marketing and in Threads' case I can believe it, but I haven't seen any example of large marketing campaign by Bluesky.
How is Bluesky easier to use when it's literally also federated? And you can just create an account on any Mastodon instance like mastodon.world or mastodon.social and start using it.
It may be easier because Bluesky already made the choice for you, you don't need to pick an instance, the default is Bluesky Social and that's it, if you want a different one you can search it or make one. It removes that tiny mental block of having to commit to a server you don't know if you will like.
That's inaccurate and reductive. ATproto and ActivityPub do not federate the same way, and how they work greatly affects how users interact with the entire ecosystem.
On Mastodon, pick the wrong instance and there's content you'll never see, migration isn't complete, discovery is so bad they started a new initiative to try fixing it, instances have their own cultures, and so on.
Bluesky has issues, some I'd consider critical, but they're not directly user-facing for the most part. Make an account, you get the same experience as everyone else.
edit: Sorry, I have this issue where I try to be concise, yet feel like I end up being rude. I get your confusion, but they're quite different. Hopefully this helped; I can elaborate if you want.
I wonder whether it was the right decision to not federate with Threads.
On the one hand, yes, they would have caused a lot of problematic content, but on the other hand, it would have meant a lot of new users, and that would have livened up the place a bit. I guess.
Maybe we could do a switch in the user profile for Lemmy where it says "show Thread posts in All posts". Or something.
Sadly, Mastodon had its shot during the pandemic and blew it. The non-tech savvy didn't understand how federation worked and they marketed themselves very poorly.
I agree, but there was also the problem of Mastodon has no marketing budget. Before Musk closed the sale on Twitter, they had 2 full time employees, IIRC.
But Bluesky is federated as well; why isn't that a problem for Bluesky either.
The budget for Mastodon gGmbH is measured in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and Bluesky's is much more than that.
Yet, Bluesky didn't even support video posts until two weeks ago. Many other highly requested features are still missing. To what extent does the success of each platform come down to money? What did Bluesky do with a larger budget to get an edge?
My recollection is that they advertised and got Important People™ to post there as part of their invite-only beta. Don't quote me on this, but I believe they paid some of these people to create accounts and post there. Not sure if that was a rumor or not.
I looked around, but was unable to find more about this. Until something new comes up, I'm assuming it's just a rumor.
Because people, even leftists, want the bad company to be replaced by a good company.
Why replace horrible company with bad company run by literally THE guy that let the prior company become horrible instead of replacing it with good non-profit network?
FOMO. More celebrities are on Bluesky than Mastodon and people don't care enough about open protocols and so forth to forego that. If Taylor Swift was only on some Fediverse-enabled platform and nothing else, people would come here in droves. Taylor Swift does not post on Mastodon so people don't want an account here. Replace Taylor Swift for anyone of any sort of popularity and ask the same questions.
I do wonder who the most famous person in the world is that exclusively posts on a Fediverse-platform. It could very well be Eugen Rochko, who probably has about a 0.05% name recognition throughout the world.
Are you talking about Dorsey? Because if so, he left Bluesky as he didn't like their focus on moderation.
Not that it matters much, I sincerely doubt most users look up such details before joining anything. It's all about the experience.