Why do People Choose BlueSky Over Mastodon?

prototype_g2@lemmy.ml to Asklemmy@lemmy.ml – 226 points –

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.)

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

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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. :::

210

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.

Because the mastodon evangelists are horrible.

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

Honestly?

I vastly prefer almost everyone I have interacted with on mastodon over basically every lemmy user. Because lemmy still thinks it is reddit but also is totally over their ex but do you think he is thinking of me and can I send him a picture of your dick to show it is bigger?

Whereas mastodon? People kind of just want to talk. We largely understand that twitter has been a shithole for... most of its existence. So rather than try to reinvent it (bsky and threads) we are learning from it in the same way cohost learned from tumblr (and died even faster...).

And the lunatics who need to scream about what federation is and why it is The Future? They aren't talking about basically anything else. They are keeping to themselves and talking about how amazing the community can be... while the rest of us are actually being a community.

My interactions on Mastodon are far fewer than on Lemmy, though.

IMO, Lemmy is like a CoOp video game where you’re supposed to interact together, and Mastodon is like watching someone else play a solo video game.

Both can be good, but they serve different purposes to me.

I think thats by design. Microblogging vs Forums.

Ths former, like the bird app is to yell into the void and hear what others yell while lemmy and reddit is built around it's comment sections.

This is exactly why I never got into Xitter or Mastodon. I've tried them, but it's a lot of work sifting through stuff to try to find somebody you want to follow. And newsflash, I don't find many people that interesting that I want to hear what they say repeatedly.

Whereas forum style I can more easily find content I enjoy, then also possibly enjoy the comments as well.

Neither is right or wrong, it's just a different approach to online engagement.

I kinda used to like twitter to find related stuff to my interests and content creators in a more digestible form than sifting through subreddits, but nowadays its nigh unusable.

redditors are the fucking worst.

I mean, Lemmy is basically a big discussion forum to share links or get an argument going. You're obviously gonna get more confrontations.

Bsky/Mastodon/Threads is strangers yelling their thoughts into the void in between posts about their cats or pictures of themselves. Not exactly a place where most people will go in with the intention of dissenting.

And yet?

Mastodon is full of actual conversations between people. Someone says something. Someone else replies and an actual conversation happens where people respond to each other.

Lemmy? It almost always devolves into people trying to one up each other and aggressively talk at each other. It is like we speed ran reddit and went from "How dare you have a different opinion" to "I am going to cherry pick a sentence and build a whole fucking straw city from that".

You literally cannot search for Mastodon without getting a weird ass 2-paragraph manifesto about The Fediverse.

End users just want to use shit.

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.

The difference is that you won’t find yourself unable to send an e-mail because the admin of your e-mail server doesn’t like someone from the recipient’s e-mail server.

No? There are a lot of mail providers that are listed as spam on other providers „just because“. So yes, that literally does happen.

I mean, that is a possible thing for your e-mail admin to do. They just generally don't.

Well, you know that by desing wassap, telegram, etc can communicate with each other but they intentionally cut that feature to only be able to menssege server internally?

You have to pick a Mastodon server, before you know anything about anything. The acquisition funnel probably drops 90% of the people checking it out right there.

☝️ This. It's why I put off signing up for Mastodon for a long time, even though I am a big supporter of the Fediverse.

Felt the same about Lemmy when I signed up.

The only reason I actually wound up signing up on Lemmy is that there is one "main" instance by appearance, and it lets you participate in others(?). (Lemmy.world)

You don't need to know any of the more esoteric stuff to get going.

Just pick an open one, that's the easiest choice. No essays, no worrying about being denied, easy.

You've started this at least twice in this thread. People aren't like that, just in general. Heck, I understood it and still had trouble picking a server for Lemmy and mastadon.

Do I want a single topic or domain to define me? Will a small server have popular posts? Will it have popular people? I can't find this popular account because I'm typing in username instead of user+domain.

I created and deleted at least 5 before I gave up and just picked one. Is that what most people would do?

I don't think you're wrong, but I think you are not putting yourself in the shoes of most users who want to follow a celebrity or a train station or space agency and can't even find their account.

There are at least three viable commercial microblogging sites right now. So you already have all these problems, without even considering the Fediverse. The Fediverse is the SOLUTION to these problems, not the cause.

I'm sorry I wasn't entirely clear, BIG server, with open sign-ups. The complaints about finding people aren't really valid when we have big servers like this one or mastodon.social. Such servers have the best reach and the easiest onboarding. Pick those.

This, when I decided to join Mastodon I was prompted to choose a server and had to research which one should join and understand how it works.

It is called UX friction and is well studied in sign up and checkout processes, the more steps the user has to perform the more likely it abandons it.

Just pick one, you're thinking too hard. I just picked one that's open because I didn't want to write an essay about myself to prove my worth and get someone to accept me, because I know that there isn't any reason why anyone would accept me over someone else (I'm a nobody). I hate the idea of someone else having to review my worth before being allowed to sign up, what a disgusting concept. "Oh it's to stop spam 🤓" All the other sites have been dealing with Spam good enough without asking me to prove my worth to them, maybe the Fediverse should take some pointers from the big boys at Big tech, they seem to be doing better than you are when it comes to this.

Eww no, I definitely don't want them to take any pointers from big tech. Their anti-spam methods are way too restrictive and invasive to your privacy. I don't want to give my phone number to websites just to sign up. And I cannot even view Youtube videos or Instagram posts because they are blocking the IPv6 address of my 6in4 tunnel which I need because my ISP doesn't have IPv6 yet. I have to sign in to "confirm you are not a bot".

Your example with YouTube is not an anti-spam measure, it's them trying to restrict and create exclusivity with their content, they're just lying and calling it anti-spam. I think it's better to have some annoying automated spam defense like Reddit and the gang does than it is to be judged on my worth and denied because I'm not interesting enough or meet some dumb criteria to join the exclusive clubs Lemmys are slowly becoming fuck that.

How is picking a Mastodon server different from signing up for email, finding a discord server, signing up to follow channels on youtube, and so on. Somehow people have no problems figuring those things out, but when it comes to Mastodon this is constantly brought up like some insurmountable challenge.

Having to make an informed decision is a barrier to entry. it took me a while because I wanted to make sure I didn't join (and waste time/effort) something I didn't align with.

You don't have to make an informed decision. Signing up for an instance isn't a blood pact. If you find the instance you singed up for isn't to your liking, You can easily migrate your account to another. Meanwhile, if you're worried about something you don't align with, then you don't even get that choice with a centralized platform like Bluesky. For example, I don't align with any of this shit https://toad.social/@davetroy/113476788536250587

You don’t have to make an informed decision.

Correct, but you are still presented with a decision that adds friction to the onboarding experience. I was aware of how Mastodon works and that I could migrate and it took me a while to create an account because I didn't want to "waste my time". I can't imagine a regular user being prompted to "select an instance", decide to go with the first one they see, and registration is either closed or invite only. That's a huge barrier to entry compared to being forced into a single login that is always open.

Meanwhile, if you’re worried about something you don’t align with, then you don’t even get that choice with a centralized platform like Bluesky. For example, I don’t align with any of this shit https://toad.social/@davetroy/113476788536250587

100000% agree with you. I would never create a bluesky account because of that. Unfortunately people aren't as informed and most really just don't care.

What I'm saying is that the amount of friction this adds is completely blown out of proportion. It's just not that hard, and people acting like it's a huge barrier are not being serious. If this was the case email would've never taken off. The fact that we're at the point where it's hard to imagine a regular user going outside a walled corporate garden is really the problem here.

Unfortunately people aren’t as informed and most really just don’t care.

The flip side is that we shouldn't care too much either. Fediverse already has millions of users, and it can just keep growing organically at its own pace.

Email has taken 25 years to get people that comfortable with it, and most folks either go with their ISP email, or one of 3 or 4 providers. Discord, you're already in the tech savvy population.

Yet, the fact remains that people did get comfortable with email, and even the least tech illiterate people are able to use it.

That definitely makes a difference, you can choose which but by default it already selects one so some people won't even change it for convenience, however, that's not a thing on Mastodon so.. Also, a lot of those are mobile users and BlueSky has a lot more Twitter-like familiar UI than Mastodon apps (maybe I'm wrong and if so, point me to which one because there are so many.. there goes another issue and convenience out of the window for people who just don't care about searching and wants something to be done quick - so basically most of Twitter users that still didn't leave it or went to BlueSky)

You have to pick a microblogging service. What's the difference? Truth Social is just a mastodon instance, but it's commercial and it has marketing. That's all that's "missing" from any other fediverse instance, and thank fucking god.

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."

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.

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.

As a layman, I promise you “write your own algorithmic code” is not a feature that would compel me to sign up for a service

I was thinking along the lines of being given a list of popular algorithms, but if you find an algorithm you like on another instance you can copy it over to your instance. So it is not necessary to write code and nearly nobody would do it, they would just use ones that other people created.

But I realize this is an extremely difficult request so I'm not really serious when I propose it.

I think it would be an awesome feature but like you said, just not something that is going to sway a typical social media user to give it a shot. But I can see it being a really cool way for advanced users to really customize their experience.

Oh yeah this has little to do with the original question about why bsky is more popular. This suggestion of "let people write their own algorithms" is for the devs who think algorithms are harmful. They aren't harmful if you give users the power to choose their own algorithm. Techie people can write the algorithms and non-techie people can choose them. Chances are a few algorithms would eventually become the most popular and very few would be written after that, but the point is you let the users decide instead of the Mastodon devs having to write the algorithms.

And now I realize bsky actually has something like this: Custom Feeds. If I understand correctly, they get around the "running untrusted code" issue by not running the code on bsky servers. Instead whoever wrote the custom feed gets the data from bsky, runs the algorithm on a separate server, then returns the custom feed. Pretty clever. https://docs.bsky.app/docs/starter-templates/custom-feeds

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.

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.

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.

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.

Exactly I had difficulty finding content and any "guide" or anything I seemed to find was too confusing or not practical for me. I don't use Twitter, blue sky, or mastadon regularly but when I checked them all out, blue sky was the best in all round; "Ease of use" and "easy to find content"

That sounds more like a feature than a bug. I remember when Twitter was actually useful. You could sort by "new" as the default and your feed only included stuff from people you followed. And then it went to complete shit with the sort defaulting to "fuck your preferences", sponsored content and your feed being littered with click bait, paid content and all the other bits of enshitification. And that is all built on the algorithmic selection of content.

I didn't say it was a bad thing, I just said it's one reason Bsky is more popular. People are busy and want algorithms.

There’s a trending posts list which helps fill this want for me.

thats the entire point of mastodon.

literally why it was built. Edit :

It’s not supposed to be a place you go to get served content. You pick who you follow, and that’s your feed.

The problem has been lack of adoption by popular news and culture . So you go there, and you cannot easily find high volume content provided like the bbc, nfl, Real Madrid, Activision, etc etc

We get that it is the design philosophy for Mastodon to not have an algorithm serving content, but it appears to be a non-starter for a lot of users of Twitter like services.

In theory, a third party could write that algorithm and implement it in some form. Truth Social functions like that, but without federating to the rest of Mastodon.

I think people are misunderstanding what I mean by algorithm. An algorithm could show you stuff from people you don't follow (yuck), but it could also show you popular stuff only from people you follow. That used to be how Facebook did it.

To me, Mastodon’s biggest problem is its refusal to have an algorithm to surface popular content.

Isn't Explore - Posts on the desktop web client exactly what you're looking for? It was always there and it's where I spend most of my Mastodon time.

It looks like that's popular posts by anyone, not just by people I follow. So it's a start, but different people want to see different things so having a single firehose like Explore doesn't really meet the need. For me, I want to see popular stuff by people or hashtags I follow. Other people might want to see other things.

Yes, that's true. I am under the impression that "the algorithm" on the popular platforms mixes in posts from people you don't follow. The only one I was somewhat familiar with was the Twitter one from when I was there.

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.

Algorithms makes me less addictive because it always suggest the same type of boring content

Oh, that’s interesting. Lucky you, I guess. The algorithms have been tuned to be as engaging as possible, and that seems to be working for most people. Obviously, it’s impossible to make it work for literally everyone, and you seem to be one of the few who can escape the algorithm.

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

This is a great commentary to me. I think it shows just how much of an appetite we currently have for a curated space. It’s almost like Mastodon is a service that’s about 15 years too late.

I remember going around to older forums and sites looking for specific content when I wanted it, and I wasn’t always guaranteed to find something I liked, but I would often see something interesting.

Now, though, I really want anywhere I go to knock me off my feet with good content because that’s what I’m conditioned to. Isn’t that what makes me an addict, though? I’m wondering if that chance of dissatisfaction isn’t a virtue to ensure no one platform takes control of all my attention.

I think using hashtags with filters serve the same purpose

But it still won't put my friend's popular posts at the top, right? I don't want to scroll past 20 pictures of people's dinner and then find out one of my friends got engaged, I want the "I got engaged" post at the top because it's probably getting the most interaction.

People expecting a new Twitter when switching to Mastodon were met with weird behavior and nerds who told them the awful search function or weird comment count is working correctly because that's how federation works. Well if that's the case then federation is shit.

This is unfortunately the world of open-source.

  1. Nerd tells you to use the open-source thing.
  2. Non-technical tries it and asks questions
  3. Nerd proclaims it's not a real problem/your fault/not applicable/fix it yourself
  4. Some company takes that open-source version or idea, makes it easier for end users and monetize it
  5. Nerd gets angry and repeats step 1

Source: I am nerd and I contribute to open-source.

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.

I was going to reply with this. This is exactly one of the problems. I didn't have a Twitter, but I wanted to join mastadon. I had to find a way to access it, and an instance to sign up on. In theory it's good but for a new user it can be difficult to sign up.

Then ofc the difficulty of finding content, there is content, but part of the no frills meant most of the stuff I saw wasn't in English (I am a mon-english speaker) and it was tricky to figure out how to juat get English content let alone content I was interested in.

I’m reasonably tech savvy. All my personal computers run Linux, I have a 2-node proxmox homelab with 10+ containers and virtual machines running self hosted services. I can hack other people’s code together from web searches to sometimes make things work.

I had to do a few web searches to figure out how to sign up and get started on Mastodon. If it was a bit of a challenge for me with my listed tech skills, it’s insurmountable to the average user in the general public.

The average person understands email pretty well. Mastodon doesn't require much more understanding than that, but could probably use some UX and messaging work.

No I’m sorry this is not correct. Most people don’t know how email works. They don’t understand federation, how servers work, or have the confidence or patience to learn it. They want to click an app and get content.

You are on an open source self hosted federated media platform exclusively inhabited by tech super users and developers. We are very much in an echo chamber here. I leave you this study that I keep posting here when Lemmy users lament over the lack of uptake from the general public:

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-skill-levels/

Holy hell, 95% of people can't figure out "what percentage of the emails sent by John Smith last month were about sustainability." That is absolutely wild to me, and I already thought my perception was skewed the other direction due to working with largely disadvantaged people. That's an eye opener for sure, thanks for sharing

I don't think many people have read RFC 5322 (I haven't), but most non-technical people I know understand these things about email:

  • There are different service providers, and people can email each other no matter which provider they use
  • There are different email apps
  • Some apps are tied to specific service providers and others are not

I do lament the overall level of tech literacy.

Do they though? To most of my peers email=gmail

I do agree that it's a good way to explain federation, anybody willing to be openminded will get the concept very quickly (I mean the importance of federation, like for email, not simply the fact that it's a thing / old tech but whatever who cares).

But will many be exposed to those posts or articles explaining the fediverse while staying inside of the walled gardens? I hope so, personally I'm not going there anymore myself :)

.....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.

the average social media user wants to know what face cream Kim Kardashian uses, follows Cristiano Ronaldo and thinks you should go back to your own country.

Oof. That is bleak, and all the more so because you’re probably dead on

Yhea your first mistake is thinking that 99% give a flying fuck about federation

It just makes it's more complex to adopt

Bluesky ?

Go on there, sign-up, done

Everything works.

Nothing else to do. Nothing to understand.

This is the only correct answer.

It's easy to get on and it works just like Twitter. People don't even need to understand what Federation is to get up and running on the platform.

The lemmy devs should add a feature to their website where you can just create and account and it creates and account on an instance that is closest geographically to the IP address you are connecting from and is federated with the most servers.

Single place for normies to make an account and they don't have to think about the federation bits, but if they get interested they can always make an account manually on another instance.

Probably some filter would be needed. Like a list of curated instances.

Imagine if the geographically closest is the Furry instance.

Bluesky is way more approachable than Mastodon. Most people don't want to have to learn what an instance is.

People are less tech literate and considerably stupider than they were 20 year ago. It's shocking.

The year is 2034 and 96% of the population is unemployed because they are all forced to "do their own research" on literally everything and there's no time to work. We all must research every niche topic to fully understand it before using it or the other 4% calls us stupid and lazy.

No longer are we allowed to just buy a shower head, or bike or sign up for email without sources cited and proof we know everything about said thing.

Have kids? Do their research too, no chocolate milk unless I've proven why it's good.

Elderly parents? Don't let them touch that Roku remote. I need a research paper on all the options I explored.

Sorry for all the sarcasm. I fix my house, I work, I mow the lawn and shuttle children to sports, and my friend says check this bluesky thing out, 30 seconds and I'm signed up and have a friend and a discover tab and a search that works. Life's chaotic and I don't want to be defined as stupid because I can't spend hours figuring something out in place of something I think is more important.

All this not directed at you specifically but I guess it hit a nerve.

There are reasons that they have spent thousands or tens of thousands of working hours to make uptake as easy as possible. Those reasons are not in your interests. It is such a small price to pay. It is a necessary feature of ANY distributed service. The irony of complaining about it from your niche little Lemmy instance.

Look at it this way. You still had to pick an instance!! You just picked an instance that cannot talk to any other instances. If you were not so (forgive me but I guess it's the term we're using for lack of a better one) stupid, you would have realized that you had just had a meaningful choice taken from you, and made for someone else's benefit instead of yours.

Throughout our entire global culture, convenience is killing us. I happen to believe free and healthy public forums outside of capitalist exploitation is of vital importance. I think this is a place our governments have abdicated responsibility to their citizens, and the Fediverse is the next best thing to public infrastructure. It's so worth it when everything you need to know can be expressed in a one page FAQ that fits on your phone's screen.

Mastodon being federated is absolutely not a flaw. This is how the internet was meant to work in the first place. The fact that people got used to using centralized platforms is an aberration and this needs to be actively fought against.

I should have been more clear. I meant “The federalized nature of Mastodon seems to be its biggest obstacle to it achieving mass adoption”.

The post was about why Mastodon isn’t receiving as many user as BlueSky, or in other words, why it isn’t achieving mass adoption. It was under this context that I chose to use the word “flaw”, as in, flaw towards reaching mass adoption.

I don't think there's a lot of evidence that federation is a significant obstacle in practice. Email is a great example of a federated platform that even the least tech literate people are able to use just fine. It could be argued that Mastodon onboarding process could be smoother, but that's not an inherent problem with it being federated.

In my view, the simplest answer is that BlueSky has much better marketing because it has a ton of money behind it and it's been promoted by Dorsey whom people knew from Twitter. So, when people started abandoning Twitter, they naturally went to the next platform he was promoting.

I'd also argue that there is a big advantage to having smaller communities of users that focus on specific topics of interest and can federate with each other. In my experience, this creates more engaging and friendlier environment than having all the users on the same server. Growth for the sake of growth is largely meaningless.

Sorry for the long, poorly organized response. I just had a bunch of thoughts on this that I wanted to get of my head


The thing I have noticed is that the fediverse does not have an elevator pitch. It is really hard to explain things in simple terms.

Usually, when just simply trying to make an account, people expect to simply go to a website, create account and done, you are in.

While in the fediverse it is like:

  • First select an instance!

And the user is like:

  • What is "instance"...?

And them they get lectured for 10+ minutes over some tech concepts that look alien to them.

  • This raises the question: "Why is [fediverse platform] like this? Why so complicated? Why can't it just be like every other platform? Go to site, log in. Simple. What's that all "Federation" for?"

And now they will have to receive another 10+ minute long lecture on the flaws of the centralized social media.

20+ minutes worth of lecture, just so they can use a social media platform. If they hear they whole lecture, and understand it, they will probably give the fediverse a try, but if they don't because they got overwhelmed with information from your lectures they won't even try.


And all of this and I still haven't explained a single feature of the platform itself.

We need to come up with an elevator pitch that gives people some clue of what federation is.

I know what some might be thinking: "Why do they need to know what federation is?" Well yes, I could just say, go to [big Mastodon instance here] and create an account. Cool, they are using Mastodon.

But inevitably, this will happen: Someone will send them a link to a Mastodon post. They click it, but the link they were send was on another instance as such they are logged out. Thing is, they don't know what federation is and most instances have nearly indistinguishably UI, as thus the user doesn't notice they are on a completely different site. "Strange", they think, "I could have sworn I was logged in". Then they try to log in on the other instance... can't and get confused and maybe even panic. "Did I just lose my account?". And now they come to me for tech support (because I was the one who introduced them to mastodon), and I end up having to explain federation anyways.


Now, with that being said, Email is still an example of a federated platform with mass adoption, and we should use it as an example when explaining the fediverse. But I would like to stress the following point: most instances have nearly indistinguishably UI, as thus the user doesn't notice they are on a completely different site. Go different Email instances and they look distinct. Go to gmail.com and outlook.com and they look distinct enough so that people can intuitively understand that, although they are both email services, their Gmail account is not going to let them log into Outlook.

Mastodon instances on the other hand? They just brand themselves as "Mastodon" and that's about it. They look identical! Just LOOK:

No wonder people get confused. The big instances NEED to look distinct for this to work. Otherwise, the federation thing will be confusing.

Now that I'm writing this I'm realizing that this seems to be an UI problem: The instances look to similar to be immediately recognizable as distinct and that's confusing. Therefore we should work towards ensuring that instance, or at least the big ones, have a distinct appearance, their own "brand", so they can be seen as distinct so that the example scenario I showed earlier doesn't happen.

Or maybe I'm over-complicating things... Maybe it's as easy as: "It kinda works like email. On email, you can go to a number of different sites, like gmail and outlook and send mail to anyone. Mastodon is also like that, there are many websites, each one with their own rules and mod teams. You can join any of them and see post from people from the other sites."

But even this explanation has a problem: It does not explain de-federation. If they end up trying to follow someone who is on an instance their main instance as de-federated, they won't be able to find them and they won't know why. Most are not familiar with email de-federation as most only ever need to interact with the big instances which all federate with each other.

I guess my problem is that, by simplifying things so that non-tech people can understand, they will end up running into the intricacies of federation and not know what to do.

Also, if people don't understand federation, we will end up with a Gmail situation: Everybody is on the same one instance. Understanding the need for this separation of Mastodon into different instances can be hard. If we simply tell people to go to the big instance, that's what they will do. And then we end up with Gmail.

Federation and separation into smaller communities is a good thing, but it can hard to explain how and why.

Sure, but all of this basically comes down to poor marketing. It's not an inherent problem with the technology or with the concept of federation.

It shouldn't be surprising either given that Mastodon is a niche platform developed largely as a volunteer effort. The reason people advocating Mastodon tend to focus on stuff like on the flaws of the centralized social media is because that's what matters to them. We see pretty much the same thing happening with Linux, and many other open source projects.

This is the point I was making above, BlueSky has a professional marketing team that understands how to sell their product to the general public. That's the main reason BlueSky is gaining users at a faster rate.

Regarding the Gmail problem, it's true that we could end up with one major instance most people are on. I don't see that as a huge issue in practice since you can still choose use different instances. That's a fundamentally better situation to be in.

For example, I don't use Gmail and I run my own personal Mastodon instance using masto.host, this doesn't stop me communicating with people on Gmail or major Mastodon instances like mastodon.social.

For example, I don’t use Gmail and I run my own personal Mastodon instance using masto.host, this doesn’t stop me communicating with people on Gmail or major Mastodon instances like mastodon.social.

I mentioned Gmail because, when a single instances holds something like 95% of the users, that gives them a lot of power. If Gmail decided to de-federate from you... you are kinda screwed. That's my concern. Although, as you said, that is still better than a fully centralized platform.

Sure, if a big instance started to dominate the fediverse it would be a form of centralization. However, the protocol being designed with federation in mind makes it much easier for people to migrate from that instance if it becomes a bad actor.

Going back to the original point though, I do think that fediverse could be marketed better in a way that would appeal to more people. Since we agree that federation is a desirable feature, the focus should be on figuring out how to explain it to people in a sensible way.

the focus should be on figuring out how to explain it to people in a sensible way.

And that is the thing I have been struggling with and if the major instances looked visually distinct it would make it easier to not confuse them. But yeah, the fediverse has a marketing problem. We need to get people with marketing skills involved.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

I'd you go to a post you are always told that the host server may have more replies

Just yesterday I opened a post on Masto that had 80 boosts. I went to my home instance to boost it, and it said 10 boosts. I get that things will sometimes be out of sync due to federation and I don't think those numbers need to be exactly the same, but that's a huge difference.

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.

Yep. I've moved several times and the process sucks. It's ridiculous that your posts and followers don't follow you. It's technically possible to do it: just give every account a public/private key pair for identity, and if you migrate to a new instance your public/private key pair come with you so you can prove that you are still you, and then there should be no problem bringing your posts and followers to the new instance. But despite the fact that switching instances is a core feature of the Fediverse, the process sucks.

Personal answer: I draw art for a stupidly niche internet community. I'm a less popular artist so I go wear the community already is. I found one other artist on Mastodon and several on Bluesky.

Mainstream tech adoption needs a neat clean wrapper imo. I think that's the biggest missing piece to fediverse, people want pretty, simple, plug and play.

If a wrapper like that could be put on top of/combined with all the good qualities that the fediverse offers, I think it would create optimal conditions for slow adoption.

Agreed. There should have been a default place to sign up from the beginning. Leaning on federation as a feature is something very few people care about until they really care about it. The mass adopter just looks at where their favourite celebrity or talking head is and then move there.

It's the raison d'etre. Saying "don't federate" is like saying "don't put images and rich hyperlinking on the WWW, just make it like Gopher." If you don't want to federate, don't. But saying that it was a bad move for ActivityPub is just nonsensical.

I’m not saying don’t federate. I’m saying don’t talk about that as the primary feature when you’re enticing people to sign up to it.

Like Mastodon.social? Afaik it has been around since the beginning and is basically the "default" server unless you're a "hacker" and you're on infosec.pub or whatever, an edgy 4channer and you're on poa.st, a SubGenius on "Bob's" server dobbs.town, or one of the many pervert servers, or one of the asain servers I can't read, but if you're on one of those (for instance dobbs.town) you're joining dobbs.town and mastodon is just there incidentally. Anyone else can just use .social and call it a day until they find out they're really into plants.space or some specific thing.

Hell all the people I've gotten on masto that's how I did it, "Ok make an acct on mastodon.social, great now lemme follow you what's your name? Cool, see there I am! Oh I'm not on mastodon.social, I'm on dobbs.town, but we can still communicate like how I email your gmail from my protonmail, is normal. Now, there's some servers you're gonna want to block..." I don't even tell them about federation until they're already there, unless I KNOW the server they'll want (like when I recommended my Discordian friend hop on discordian.social instead of mastodon.social.)

The real kicker is that none of their precious celebs they follow are on there, as you mention. The weirdos I talk to don't care about that so it works out for me lol.

Crucially though, for a very long time they forced you to choose a server instead of just set you up on the default on.

Well I'd just tell them if I was recommending it to a friend or making a post like "follow me to mastodon" or whatever, and someone curious enough to find mastodon without a recommendation oughta be able to figure out an instance to join, mastodon.social is the first result when searching "mastodon" so it'll probably get them just based on that.

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.

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.

It's lack of marketing since it is not a business, and people conflating useful optional features with confusing usage.

Everyone I know moved to bluesky, after which bluesky basically immediately sold out to crypto people. I brought up the idea of "hey, this is why I think mastodon is a lot better, because it's impossible for it to sell out entirely", to which one person lost their fucking shit and responded stating that I was "fear mongering".

This person also said they didn't care if a business owned all their data and controlled their entire life because "all their data is owned already anyway".

This same person also said that after the recent US election they "spent the night throwing up until they were dry heaving and crying".

Why they claim to not care about their life being controlled by corporate entities, but claim to care so hard about their life being controlled by a government that they say they have a physical reaction to it is a subject I haven't broached because I'm sure they wouldn't be able to see their hypocrisy if they pointed the James Webb telescope at themselves.

In a nut shell, many people are incredibly stupid and not at all interested in their best interests unless the news tells them which interests they should care about.

basically immediately sold out to crypto people.

Wait what? I know very little about BlueSky and even less about the people behind it, so I didn't know that. Could you send me a link to more info?

https://bsky.social/about/blog/10-24-2024-series-a

They announced a series A in which they stated they are implementing paid features through a subscription model and took 15 million dollars from Blockchain Capital.

They say in this statement they won't "Hyper Financialize" the platform, which is corporate doublespeak for "We are now monetizing this platform".

The additions to their board are people who come from crypto/NFT companies.

As a result, the clock is now ticking on Bluesky and its destruction is inevitable due to the laws of capitalism.

I think the problem is Mastodon makes it hard to find people to follow. I can’t even find mainstream media official accounts, let alone an actual celebrity. The discovery features need to be improved.

Meanwhile on BlueSky I instantly see every major news outlet in my main feed.

For me, this is a feature. The last thing I want is celebrities and news outlets clogging up my feed of nice people’s sandwiches and cat pictures.

Problem with that is that is catering to a certain set of people while ignoring a whole larger user base that Mastodon could appeal to.

Just because BlueSky isn’t federated doesn’t mean it’s (totally) centralized. It uses the AT protocol which means user data lives in a separate place than the app itself. While the BlueSky app is centralized all the user data (your posts, likes, etc) live in a separate place and can be self-hosted. This means that if BlueSky went bust or something, users could easily just move to a new platform that someone would inevitably create and all of their data, likes, follows would all be there.

is that migration documented?

Sort of. There isn’t another platform to migrate to at the moment. But this link explains how to self-host your data (PDS) https://atproto.com/guides/self-hosting

And in general, because of the way the protocol works, you could easily build a new app and just use the data that Bluesky wrote. So another platform wouldn’t even need users to “migrate”, since it’s “being your own data”

Why aren't there 2nd party apps then if I can easily build a new app? I'd much prefer to use one that doesn't poll as often.

Bro do you really think common people know all about this open source interconnected stuff. Get out of your linux bubble

Right, I'm super pro open source but most normal people don't give a shit. Sure I think those people are stupid, but it doesn't change reality.

Bluesky has brand recognition (founded by the same dude as Twitter), more people and "feels like twitter", in the sense of what you see, more than mastodon. Also, news outlets seem to be migrating there.

Mastodon (and pleroma, misskey, etc) is seen as a place for weirdos and techies, with "nothing interesting going on". Several people mentioned this already one way or another, but that most servers/instances are "specific" about whatever means that people will feel that they might miss out on something by choosing the wrong server.

federation could be abstracted away, much the same way filesystems are right now

Perhaps... But how exactly?

i wish i had that answer

its usually how corpos and ux people seem solve these issues

Initial log in in the apps should default to mastodon.social with other servers buried under a menu

Defeats the whole purpose tbh. Federation means decentralisation, single point of failure architecture in that is asking for trouble.

Techies who are comfortable with federation can use the menu, no? The vast, vast majority of people don't and I do believe things should be as frictionless for them as possible. Even a big fediverse server is better than yet another walled garden they can't easily migrate off of.

Thing is (me personally speaking) i have an ideological preference towards decentralisation and I'd prefer if people more got used to having decentralised infrastructure rather than sticking to the old model (in form, not function).

Not a solution. Defeats the point of decentralisation, putting most (like 90%+) users in one instance. Big instance is sold to Venture Capital Firm because a bunch of amateur moderators call moderate the whole of twitter... and just like that enshitification shall commence.

the discovery on bsky is pretty nice, i dont see an equivalent on my masto instance

I’m gonna echo what others have said here. The mastodon signup process is too complex, and searching for instructions just leads to “what is the fediverse and/or activitypub” explainers.

I created a mastodon account a few years ago and it was my first introduction to the fediverse. It was frustrating and I only persevered because I REALLY wanted to replace twitter.

Once I got it set up, I realized that no one who I followed on twitter was there. My feed is currently like 2 people, plus a bunch of dead accounts from people who dipped their toe in but didn’t stay.

Joining Bluesky was simple, and there were already a bunch of accounts I wanted to follow. The recent influx has increased that, and it feels a lot like old school twitter without the nazis.

People originally joined twitter (and stuck with it for so long) because that’s where everyone else is. Mastadon is too clunky join and use, so people aren’t.

My feed is currently like 2 people, plus a bunch of dead accounts from people who dipped their toe in but didn’t stay.

For me a lot of those toe dippers were subsequently found to have settled on BlueSky.

Same here, which is why my Bluesky feed is much better. Everyone wants to be where everyone else is (that isn’t X), and it seems like that’s Bluesky.

Easy.

  1. No one outside of the fediverse bubble gives a fuck about federation. It solves a problem no one has, and offers no real solutions to problems users have.

  2. Mastodon offers nothing on the Twitter experience outside of "but it's federated"

Most people don't know much, and don't care that they don't know much. Half of US adults can't read at a 6th grade level. They don't care about and probably do not understand complex topics.

That's it. They just want cat gifs, and that's the end of the thought.

I knew someone who was smart and successful and politically aware. She didn't care about any of this. She was tired from work and just wanted the familiar ease or twitter. Trying to figure out which server to sign up for and finding content was too much work.

A lot of people have executive dysfunction. Making a choice is hard.

I honestly don't get the whole "picking an instance is hard" thing, especially with masto. "Just use the default instance, mastodon.social, unless you have a reason not to," bang problem solved. Then it'd become a larger point of failure but if it went down "well now that you sorta understand it make an acct on the server most of your follows were on," bang 'nother problem solved.

Hell I have been diagnosed with executive function disorders and I can figure it out, it's not as hard as people pretend, we've all done it with email since like '95. "It's hard" is just twitter/bluesky propaganda!

I've heard that there's some problems with picking up only the most popular servers, and that mastodon.social has some moderation issues

Like I said "sure that makes it a bigger point of failure, but if it ever goes down just make one on whatever server most of your follows are on."

As for the moderation issues, maybe, idk, but then again if you're unhappy with the moderation by the time you get to that point "federation" is no longer a big scary word and you've likely found an instance you'd like to move to by virtue of just seeing it on your feed in .social, and on top of that masto lets you migrate accounts even, so it makes that a lot less painful to do.

I get the impression that some people have such decision fatigue, asking them to do something seemingly trivial is akin to asking someone without limbs to pick up a spoon.

People's brains don't work good.

Then they shouldn't be able to decide to move to blusky either if they're that paralyzed by choice.

And tbh I get it, I've been debating myself on just trimming my beard for like 6mo, and that much like "what masto instance should I join" is a preeetty consequence free decision, but imo the masto choice is even less consequential, you could make an acct on literally every instance that'll take you if you wanted for free and lurk them and/or abandon them at will and remake another at will too whereas the beard has to grow for a while.

Also I gotta link this song since it's so relevant lol.

I'd say its because less people probably know of mastodon then bluesky, since on Twitter everyone seems to be making a bluesky account but no one a mastodon account which would result in less people knowing about it.

On Mastodon, you must pick an instance, for some weird "federation" tech reason, whatever that means;

On email, you must pick a server, for some weird "server" reason, whatever that means;

It's literally no different than deciding "should I go with Gmail or hotmail msn yahoo" fuck ok I guess there really is only one email provider now. Huh.

Yahoo and AOL email are both still around and relatively widely used, and there's plenty more that aren't ran by large companies, like FastMail.

I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but that was a joke. I am indeed aware of the existence of other email services.

Because people I want to follow are on Bluesky?

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

And why that people are there? And why the people that people follow are there? Period.

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

Just to be devil's advocate, perhaps the federated nature of Mastodon could be its greatest strength as well. Isn't part of the point of all of this to avoid too much centralized control of social media?

Sure, Mastodon may never have as much mainstream appeal as BlueSky, but I use both. One of the reasons why I like Mastodon is precisely because I want to interact with more of a niche community on a federated platform. To interact with the masses on a platform that is more centralized, I use BlueSky.

perhaps the federated nature of Mastodon could be its greatest strength as well.

I should have been more clear. I meant "The federalized nature of Mastodon seems to be its biggest obstacle to it achieving mass adoption".

The post was about why Mastodon isn't receiving as many user as BlueSky, or in other words, why it isn't achieving mass adoption. It was under this context that I chose to use the word "flaw", as in, flaw towards reaching mass adoption.

One of the reasons why I like Mastodon is precisely because I want to interact with more of a niche community on a federated platform.

I agree. Mastodon being niche isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Bluesky is more similar to Twitter and has what most people were used to, like an algorithm, quote tweets, etc I found it extremely boring, but tbh it's a more polished experience. One of my biggest annoyances with Mastodon is how threads and replies look weird. Sometimes I see the reply to a post before I see the post, especially in the "lists" view. Also not having an algorithm is both good and bad. It's great because it's organic, but it also means many posts get buried and it's dependent on the time. As someone not living in the US and Europe, it's tricky because sometimes you'll post something when most people are asleep and no one will see it. I ultimately love Mastodon more because of the openness and the federation. But most people will find Bluesky more approachable

Two things I don't see anybody saying:

  1. BlueSky is has venture capital funding, giving it greater marketing capabilities. Capitalism isn't won by having a better product, it's won by convincing people they should buy your product.
  2. Dumb luck. Sometimes things just go viral, and you can try to figure it out in hindsight, but even that's just a guess. If people could accurately predict what was going to be popular, venture capitalists wouldn't have like a 90% miss rate.

I can't tell for BlueSky because I have not joined yet, but I did create a Mastodon account months ago and I'm not sure what to do with it or how to interact with others. I find it confusing.

On Twitter I was mostly following a bunch of like minded people, liking their stuff, and I could see what they liked too. But on Mastodon there's uuh, boosts and favorites?! I'm not sure of how it works or what I'm doing. I can't just "like" posts? I have to boost them?! I found the people I liked that were on Twitter, but on Mastodon I feel like there's nothing I can do aside from seeing posts and it's just not attractive.

Instead of comparing these smaller platforms together to find out why one is better or not people should be focusing on why xitter and Facebook are still two of the most popular forms of social media.

Network effects, boomers being unable to figure out how to switch

It's not just boomers though. I work with a lot of younger people and they all still use xitter/facebook.

They either don't know/care about alternatives because "everyone else is using it"

This confuses me because BlueSky does not have any federalization technologies built into it,

Bluesky is designed to be federated though. It's just not fully available yet. Also, Bluesky is open-source, licensed under the MIT license.

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

I don't think federation has to be an obstacle for non-tech people. They don't really have to know about it, and it can be something they learn about later. I really don't know if federation stops people from trying it out. Don't people think, "I don't know what instance to join, so I'm not going to choose any?"

Personally, having no algorithm for your home feed is what I don't like about it. Everything is chronological. Some people I follow post many times a day, some post once per month, some post stuff I'm extremely interested in sporadically, followed by a sea of random posts. Hashtag search and follow is also less useful because there's no option for an algo.

The UI seems fine to me. I guess I'm not picky about UIs. The one nitpick I have is on mobile, tapping an image will just full-screen the image instead of opening the thread.

For me it's that more people I wanted to follow are now on blue sky but I have both. I have been liking the community on blue sky a little more.

I never used twitter though so what do I even know lol

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

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.

Twitter is evil

Mastodon has bad UX

BlueSky is fresh

Mastodon is ideologically sound, but has not nailed the UX

Lemmy has terrible UX too. I only find it useable because of third-party apps.

God yes. I used to share Lemmy links until I realized what a horrible UI I'm sending them.

Probably easier for social graph exploration TBH, it's one of Mastodons main handicaps.

The only reason is the sign up/UX thing. Maaaaybe. And now a critical mass is there

The absolutely delightful feature that you can use block lists, where you can block all of the MAGA trash with a click and effectively silence them from your life. The ability to collectively silence them is golden.

same reason we just elected donald fucking trump. people will always take the easy option that makes them feel good.

Because not everyone has the same opinion.

It doesn't mean they are wrong, it just means they like different things than you.

Of course I have to ELI5 in .ml