this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024

247 points (96.3% liked)

Asklemmy

47889 readers

231 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
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

247

Why do People Choose BlueSky Over Mastodon? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

227 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I's heard news that BlueSky has been growing a lot as Xitter becomes worse and worse, but why do people seem to prefer BlueSky? This confuses me because BlueSky does not have any federalization technologies built into it, meaning it's just another centralized platform, and thus vulnerable to the same things that make modern social media so horrible.

And so, in the hopes of having a better understanding, I've come here to ask what problems Mastodon has that keep people from migrating to it and what is BlueSky doing so right that it attracts so many people.

This question is directed to those who have used all three platforms, although others are free to put out their own thoughts.

(To be clear, I've never used Xitter, BlueSky or Mastodon. I'm asking specifically so that I don't have to make an account on each to find out by myself.)

Edit:

Edit2: (changed the wording a bit on the last part of point 1 to make my point clearer.)

From reading the comments, here are what seems to be the main reasons:

Federation is hard

The concept of federation seems to be harder to grasp than tech people expected. As one user pointed out, tech literacy is much less prevalent than tech folk might expect.

On Mastodon, you must pick an instance, for some weird "federation" tech reason, whatever that means; and thanks to that "federation" there are some post you cannot see (due to defederalization). To someone who barely understands what a server is, the complex network of federalization is to much to bare.

BlueSky, on the other hand, is simple: just go to this website, creating an account and Ta Da! Done! No need to understand anything else.

~~The federalized nature of Mastodon seems to be its biggest flaw.~~

The unfamiliar and more complex nature of Mastodon's federalization technology seems to be its biggest obstacle towards achieving mass adoption.

No Algorithm

Mastodon has no algorithm to surface relevant posts, it is just a chronological timeline. Although some prefer this, others don't and would rather have an algorithm serving them good quality post instead of spending 10h+ curating a subscription feed.

UI and UX

People say that Mastodon (and Lemmy) have HORRIBLE UX, which will surely drive many away from Mastodon. Also, some pointed out that BlueSky's overall design more closely follows that of Twitter, so BlueSky quite literally looks more like pre-Musk Xitter.

(page 5) 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 39 points 5 months ago (2 children)

.....BlueSky does not have any federalization technologies built into it, meaning it's just another centralized platform, and thus vulnerable to the same things that make modern social media so horrible.

Ask your average social media user what any of that means and you'll get blank stares.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago (1 children)

People don't care about federation. Or vendor lock-in.

I haven't tried bluesky, but mastodon seems a little broken by design. I'd you go to a post you are always told that the host server may have more replies. Things like that make it seem immature and perhaps just a bad solution compared to a monolithic approach.

If you don't like the instance (why wouldn't I?) you can just move to a different one. Yes, and restart my network. It's not really a good solution. I would like to exist on mastodon and just use some server. If I don't like it, continue somewhere else.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Because people I want to follow are on Bluesky?

(I mean, duh? Did you really need people to state that?!)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 24 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I agree with the other commenter's points, but one thing I think people forget to mention is that BlueSky feels like Twitter in a way Mastodon just doesn't. When I am trying to pitch Mastodon to people, I usually compare it to Tumblr because the vibes are similar.

Mastodon is also flat out hostile to influencers, and by that I mean the platform is designed to be terrible to influencers. The lack of an alogarithm means you can't game the system, no quote tweets means you get less opportunities to spread, no reply limiting means your notifications are going to be going nuts from the replies. The culture on Mastodon is difficult to game too, since people there expect thoughtful responses to their replies.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Personally I have zero interest in influencers and I’d rather use a platform that isn’t designed to amplify their content. That’s just me.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I mean, same here, but if an influencer migrates from Twitter they usually bring their fans with them.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

Very true, good point. I’m looking at it from my own selfish point of view. 😁

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago

Exactly. The design, the sign-up process, the colors, the formatting, it's all very pre-Musk-Twitter.

Even the icon is reminiscent!

It's as smooth a transition as you can make it, so no wonder people do it effortlessly.

Meanwhile in camp Mastodon: "Please pick a server" -> tab closed already

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

People have to choose a server with mastodon, and you can't just pick any server because of the mess of defederations.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 5 months ago (8 children)

Because in Bluesky, you open the app, create an account, and you’re good to go.

Federation is way too complex of an idea for the average person. Picking a server and then understanding instances is much too complicated.

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] [email protected] 188 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (11 children)

Because the mastodon evangelists are horrible.

Back when there was any question of what platform to migrate to? Threads and bluesky were "Get an invite and make an account"

Mastodon was people insisting that EVERYONE needed to understand what federation is and the underlying philosophy. When really they should have just said "Sign up for one of these instances. It is like email where it doesn't really matter what provider you have". Countless times I tried to explain to folk on a message board or discord and would say "Just make an account on one of these four or five instances". And, like clockwork, someone would "well ackshually" me and insist that people can't use Mastodon without understanding the fundamental concept of federation and how picking the right instance is important and people can just delete and remake their accounts until they are satisfied.

So when it was time for the big influencers to move? They went to where people were already congregating and where they didn't need to host an educational seminar to tell someone how to make an account.

[–] [email protected] 61 points 5 months ago (8 children)

Because the mastodon evangelists are horrible.

Yeah that's another thing, Mastodon is kinda nice, except for its userbase. :P

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] [email protected] 30 points 5 months ago

A big issue with the 2022 signup wave was the influx of new Masto websites, run by new admins. The subscription model of ActivityPub meant they were mostly contentless, and they weren't seeded by knowledgeable users. People needed to understand the basics of federation to find anything because nothing was being syndicated on those sites.

And then a bunch of them shut down when admins who were ok hosting hundreds of like-minded users suddenly had thousands of generalist users flooding their sites.

It was major human infrastructure failure.

And that was as a whole bunch of tenured users started getting hostile over people not adopting the idiosyncratic nettiquite of the was-niche-only-yesterday space. The server blocks started rolling out, and people needed to understand the idea of "federation" (and, apparently, "the Internet") to understand why they were being "denied access" to the cranky people, trolls, and unmoderated spaces.

The truth is, most people don't like the internet. They like the simple, streamlined process of just being owned by corporate interests. Walles gardens work for them in a way public parks never will.

load more comments (9 replies)

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

A lot of people are offput by having to choose a server before creating an account. If that could be automated somehow I think Mastodon would be more popular.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago

Yeah... but I think it's too late for Mastodon to be popular. Bluesky is already at the tipping point.

Mastodon just needed to sign you up to their own default server, power users could sign up to different ones and they would have still got the regulars in the door. Mastodon also needed twitter feature parity, something Bluesky also managed much faster.

Once people are in and settled, then they would start asking questions about that URL after their username, people would slowly become comfortable with the federation and understand it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Most of people choose what marketing makes them to choose.

All that's missing is the garage myth behind the creation of BlueSky, without forgetting how its creator is a genius, and these people would be willing to pay for access!

Centralized or decentralized platforms, they don't care lol

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Well yeah, that‘s just how people work. Mastodon is unfortunately also not really a catchy name. Combined with the seemingly complicated system behind it, it probably never had a chance to begin with.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago

Bluesky is more like Twitter, and Twitter users prefer Twitter to Mastodon

[–] [email protected] 77 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (16 children)

I'm on both Mastodon and Bluesky. To me, Mastodon's biggest problem is its refusal to have an algorithm to surface popular content. Yes there are problems with algorithms, but I don't have the time or inclination to read every post in chronological order. A good algorithm would show me popular posts without manipulating me for profit.

Edt: a few people have misunderstood me. I'm not proposing "Mastodon shows me stuff from people I don't follow," I'm suggesting "Mastodon shows me stuff only from people I follow, but it shows me the popular stuff first."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

The lack of an algorithm is a solution. Social media tends to be too addictive to the point it can be harmful to humans, so Mastodon was intentionally designed to be less addictive.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I didn't say refusing to have an algorithm was a bad thing, I just said it's one reason Bluesky is more popular.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 43 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Problem with algorithms showing popular content is that once you have them, you'll have people trying to use them to make money. And by extension people trying to manipulate you for profit. Doesn't have to be the platform itself doing it for it to be harmful.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Yeah being manipulated by algorithm is a problem. The best solution I can think of is Mastodon adding the ability to choose your algorithm. Not just a list of approved ones since the admins could manipulate that list, but the ability to actually upload some code so you can either write your own algorithm or choose one written by someone you trust.

That comes with a lot of problems like potentially overworking the server so I don't know if it's actually a viable solution but it would be nice.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Of course, but good luck getting those 5% of users that actually produce nearly 100% of the content to move over if their business model cannot work. And once those move, you know where all the people following them move.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

I don't really think mastodon needs those 5% to produce content to entertain and advertise a userbase of 95% lurkers. For me it's definitely a bonus that they're not there - I don't need influencer-shit in my feed.

If that kind of content creator and passive user goes to Bluesky that's fine. If they went to mastodon we'd just see calls for an algorithm, which would be directly against what I want in the platform.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm inclined to agree that's a problem. Everyone's first encounter with a social media content recommendation algorithm was one designed to manipulate them into clicking ads, so it caused some backlash. Recommendation algorithms can be tuned to show things people care about and want to engage with.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

Exactly, a lot of algorithms on for-profit sites are manipulative trash but refusing to have any algorithm at all is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

load more comments (13 replies)

[–] [email protected] 27 points 5 months ago (1 children)

its about blueskys volume reaching a 'critical mass' which will continue to then draw users.

huge groups (recently, brazil) moved there en-masse because it already had a ton of users.

its the same reason twiiter even still has users.. they dont want to leave that volume of subscribers.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

That's a bit of a circular reference: "it got popular because it got popular". The question remains: why did BlueSky reach that threshold and Mastodon did not?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago

Easier registration and everyone is on the same server by default. Think it’s that simple.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

yes, its a chicken and egg problem and a huge hurdle for literally anyone trying to create new platforms.

its about feature parity (even if they dont really exist, re:account portability), marketing among other things. bluesky is run buy a bunch of big names who were able to draw an initial load of users which got their ball rolling.

load more comments