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.
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?
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.
Easier registration and everyone is on the same server by default. Think it’s that simple.
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.
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.
- Nerd tells you to use the open-source thing.
- Non-technical tries it and asks questions
- Nerd proclaims it’s not a real problem/your fault/not applicable/fix it yourself
- Some company takes that open-source version or idea, makes it easier for end users and monetize it
- Nerd gets angry and repeats step 1
Source: I am nerd and I contribute to open-source.
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
federation could be abstracted away, much the same way filesystems are right now
Perhaps… But how exactly?
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).
i wish i had that answer
its usually how corpos and ux people seem solve these issues
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.
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.
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.
Because they miss the algorithm
Nice profile picture!
Simple - because it’s not Twitter.
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”
Two things I don’t see anybody saying:
- 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.
- 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.
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.
Blame Apple I guess
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.
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.
Easy.
-
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.
-
Mastodon offers nothing on the Twitter experience outside of “but it’s federated”
-
