I like having Bluesky because it is a non-Twitter, non-Facebook space where I can hear from all my friends who are unable or unwilling to use Mastodon (a site with real barriers to entry). I haven't talked to a lot of those folks much since 2022 and I missed them.
I have intricate arguments why Bluesky is the wrong technical model for a distributed social network. But if a person has already decided *for nontechnical reasons* that they aren't using Mastodon, those arguments mean nothing to them
There is a lot of Bluesky negativity on Mastodon and like, I am actually pretty negative on Bluesky?, but sometimes the negativity expands into attacking *Bluesky users* for making a Bad and Wrong decision, and not only is this mean¹, I feel like almost all of *those* critiques are deeply failing at empathetic imagination. You have to consider the Bluesky user's choice from *their perspective*.
¹ Sometimes being mean to a person is an ineffective way of convincing them to change their mind.
Note: I don't know if I specifically agree with this argument but I think it is very, very interesting
A number of people replied to my first post to say "but my objections to Bluesky are governance-related, not technical!". IE, the "what if Bluesky turns evil" argument.
But say someone doesn't like Mastodon. They don't like the UX. Or they don't like the ~vibe~. If you tell them, someday Bluesky will enshittify! Well. That will not be a convincing argument if, from their perspective, Mastodon is *already* shit. Those folks want a site they enjoy *now*. "Will I enjoy it later?" is secondary.
mcc
bob