I like Mastodon, and it suits my needs pretty well. I think that it has the more sustainable networking model, what with federation and ActivityPub and all.
I'm disappointed that not everyone gets what they need out of it, for one reason or another. I'm especially frustrated that people get turned off by the general tone around here, but I give off the same tone sometimes, so...
Bluesky is interesting to me. I don't really buy into the demonization of that service the same way some others have been. Jack Dorsey being on the board doesn't alarm me _that_ much.
Maybe I'm naive, but there are a few structural things I find encouraging about Blue Sky.
1. It's a "public benefit" corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation), which means that it has "the public benefit" as one of its legal responsibilities.
Basically, profit is a concern but so is "the public good." You wouldn't have the same sort of "maximize value for the share holders" brain rot going on at the board level, which is what doomed Twitter in the end if you think about it.
2. Bluesky has open sourced their federation protocol on Github: https://github.com/bluesky-social/atproto
This repository has commits as recent as 3 days ago, so it's actively getting contributions.
I find this encouraging. I don't think it's appropriate to completely dismiss the service as another walled garden yet. Could these two things change? Or maybe these two things don't mean what I think they mean?
Yeah, sure, but for me at least the jury is out.
I don't intend to join the service until they completely open it up and/or start fully implementing federation, but I don't fault anyone for joining and using it. The sooner twitter dies, the better.
Pran
Sasithya