He also left Bluesky in 2024 after it didn't become the libertarian techbro wankfest he envisioned and was instead heavily populated by folks who didn't want to slob Elon's knob.

I do think the people behind it like the idea of data portability and decen, just not enough to compromise their business for it.

I really really REALLY don't get people who leave one company turned bad to turn to another company trying the same thing.

They'll be the good guys for sure!

You're right that the issue isn't just trusting a third party in general, that's how it is for most users on Lemmy or Mastodon too.

The difference isn’t whether you personally run a server. It’s whether the network depends on a single company.

Bluesky operating basically all of the infrastructure on that network means:

• they decide moderation policy and what content gets boosted or hidden for everyone
• they alone can change the rules for access and in general (ads, pay to be seen etc.)
• they can de-prioritize or cut off third-party infrastructure
• if the company fails, pivots or is pressured legally (I'm sure the current US government could never do such a thing), the network can effectively collapse

Here on Lemmy there is no single company that has all that power. If your admin goes bad there are real options to move to and the network will still exist even if they shut their service down. You also have much more leverage over here because you have those options and no operator is drawing in tens or hundreds of millions from investors who get to make the decisions.

No, the main argument is that the main relay is, and for the foreseeable future will be operated by bluesky. This means that bluesky can decide what is and isn't visible, but that's not my biggest issue: to me the bigger problem is that bluesky sees everything that everyone says or thinks about anything.

Yes, it is possible to change. As TFA says:

But every counter-argument to the concerns above rests on the same foundation: technically, users can leave. Technically, you can self-host. Technically, you can run your own relay. The capability exists at every layer. But people don't do these things. They never have with any protocol. Not email, not RSS, not XMPP. The default wins. Always.

It doesn't matter that a few can be free: the vast majority goes where the lowest friction is because they have their life to live, and the lowest friction leads to the centralized bluesky

The cries are about how Bluesky uses it and implements the required infrastructure, not the protocol itself.

Agreed. They're both open on the internet and the data is in many repositories. Moot point (OPs', not yours).

I've run into people like that on Bluesky much more than on the fediverse. They do of course exist on both.

With the fediverse it IS the tech. Lack of recommendation engines, and overall more sluggish experience compared to established social media does deter a lot of people away. Some things might change, but lot of stuff that makes social media better for most people is against what fediverse wants

Bluesky built the platform that people actually want.

Mainly an algorithmic feed and more relaxed and diverse userbase.

Network effects.

Adulation of for profit big tech assholes is near ubitious.

("it's not just x, it's y", etc.)

Keep in mind, the AIs learned from us. So that's a thing in AI responses because humans use that structure. Same with em dashes.

Not much substance to your comment... do you agree with it?

Bluesky is a joke and its userbase are the punchline.

Succinctly said, I love it

we - the techies and early adopters - failed the general public. all they wanted was a micro-website and comms platform; publish their shit, talk to other people. stuff that's easily accomplished with 20-year old software.

but, not so easily for them. setting up a self-hosted micro-blog/comms platform is as cumbersome and inelegant as it was decades ago and no progress was made to make this any better, it only got worse. so these fucks stepped in and took over.

we got only ourselves to blame.