I mean, I hate BlueSky too, but I think the reason it’s more popular than Mastodon is that it’s more centralized and in practical terms that means it’s easier to adopt and engage with.
The biggest headache I have with Mastodon (and Lemmy, to a lesser extent) is defederation. I understand it’s the most practical thing to do sometimes, but it’s waaay overdone. Like, there needs to be a culture of only defederating as a last resort due to pratical concerns (e.g. bots I guess). Unfortunately the current culture is one where many instance admins treat defederation as a personal blocklist. I wish more admins would leave it to individual users to decide who to allow or not.
They planned ahead to make it popular, twitter developed it while losing money, my conspiracy theory is their goal was always to transition to bluesky since its model is more sustainable for long term control
What we need are good algorithms
When I first got a Bluesky account, back when it was invite-only a whole bunch of the Physicists and Astronomers I used to follow on Twitter were already there. If anything it seemed like scientists were early adopters.
Going to play devil’s advocate here.
Bluesky is just…better than any Fediverse microblogging platform. In terms of UI, discoverability, and keeping a balance of users in the community.
Mastodon sucks for regular people. And none of the other better platforms like Firefish ever gain enough steam to beat Mastodon because of existing issues in the structure of the Fediverse and ActivityPub (this also includes Mastodon itself to an extent).
Because Bluesky keeps to what made Twitter popular in the first place. The UX. You make a post and its syndicated to a federated feed that anyone can search for, and you can tag content using hashtags.
It’s a great concept. There’s a reason a lot of people use it.
Mastodon is great.
The only reason why it doesn’t get as much traction is because it doesn’t manipulate your dopamine and serotonin receptors like other networks do with their black box algorithms that are designed to steal as much of your attention as possible, while almost certainly throwing you into an unhealthy filterbubble/echochamber.
That is also true to Bluesky, and to a lesser extent, even for the Lemmy-Reddit divide. I’ve seen people leaving the alternative platforms for the mainstream ones, because the alternative ones “didn’t made them stay as long”. For me, being less addictive was part of the reason why I prefer the alt platforms, although with reddit, I had to browse through a lot of garbage already, long before the API drama.
The other issue is, nobody is trying to take on Facebook. Not really anything in the FLOSS community like it.
I believe you’ve hit the nail on the head, the only people I’ve noticed that really want such a social media account are generally people who were older than millennial, out of Millennials, gen Z and gen A, I don’t really see much interest in a social media account that is directly linked to your actual identity. Most of them are more interested in a pseuado-anonymous style account that only asks for a username and doesn’t actually link you to a real world identity.
Facebook was great in principle, it was intended as like a college student community and evolved from there, it was never meant to fill the goal of what the platform is doing today.
As such as Facebook deteriorates, there isn’t a huge demand for a Facebook alternative, because the people who are leaving the platform aren’t actively seeking to replace what is lost.
There’s a couple contenders but they’re not very good. I think most FOSS people don’t WANT a facebook alternative; they’d prefer to keep their IRL identity separate from the internet. And the people who don’t care also don’t care enough to want to go federated.
There’s spacehey as a myspace alternative though. That’s pretty neat but it’s full of teenagers unfortunately.
The thing is, bluesky is just old twitter, it will become X eventually…Bluesky sucks, but jessus, mastodon sucks in terms of usability. Its only for technical people and experience on mastodon is fatal compared to bluesky, sad that mastodon won’t take over, as it could…at least bluesky is not bad YET.
I would prefer any ActivityPub instance, but press media (and in general private entities), to which scientific institutes intend diffusion, is moving to bluesky…
Would be better if it was Mastodon, but I suppose I shouldn’t let perfect be the enemy of good, and good riddance to Twitter, indeed.
Same here, well said. Bluesky’s not perfect, at least it’s not Twitter. I wish more people would use it though
While there has been some onboarding QOL stuff for mastodon, Bluesky still has them beat on that.
The “People” segment in the explore menu is a nice start, but it’s still dependent on the users picking a server that somewhat matches their interests.
Non-EU folk - this website won’t open in EU because they don’t want to follow our local user privacy protections. What they’re going to do with your data? Who knows.
I have no clue on the reasons people like Bluesky (or threads). None at all.
Bluesky has a lot more normies on it while mastodon is mostly early-adopter types. Mastodon, in my experience, is either very technical people (software engineers and other tech people) or very political people. Bluesky has normal people on it
I checked out threads for a day and I liked it because the algorithm wasn’t jamming a bunch of outrage content down my throat but that’s the only thing I can say about it. Haven’t used it since then (deleted my entire meta account)
Took me like a day on bluesky to find all the funny people. Never saw any funny people on mastodon. :-(
Good. Sucks that it took open fascism to get that to happen, but at least it happened.
I feel like scientists should move towards open source solutions … I feel like most scientists are smart enough to launch a mastodon server, but well.
Being a scientist doesn’t mean you have the technical knowledge to run a public facing server.
Being a scientist kinda means to me you’re able to follow a very easy to understand guide to install mastodon on …
Being a scientist also kinda means understanding what are your strengths, and how you can combine them with other people who are smart along very specific narrow vectors.
Being a scientist means understanding that if you work together with the right kind of smart, curious people you can build amazing things that will improve the world.
Being a scientist in 2025 means understanding the modern business world is utter bullshit and will rot any science it touches to the core.
Being a scientist, like truly living that ethos, means being someone who believes the truth is important and that there are power structures who will fight tooth and nail to subdue that truth or hoard it to themselves for personal gain.
Being a scientist thus effectively means that I would expect that after having a brief conversation with you that you would at least understand the grave danger that entrusting science communication in another for profit social media company poses and how it doesn’t seem sensible to take that risk when the actual material barriers to creating Fediverse communities as alternatives aren’t actually that high no matter how much it feels like the barriers are impossible and the network effect is unbeatable.
Don’t get me wrong, those hurdles are real, the fediverse can be confusing, there are lots of growing pains here… however, not every scientist needs to become an expert in selfhosting Fediverse software, and not every scientist needs to become a Fediverse evangelist (although it wouldn’t hurt), but we do need to connect boldly and clearly the tragic hypocrisy of supposedly truth valuing people (scientists, science communicators and leaders that defend science) all shepherding dutifully onto another platform that will silence and betray them violently.
Scientists are inherently aligned with modern progressive politics, or rather scientists need to understand they are at everything up to physical bodily danger from being hurt by conservatives now and they need to understand that makes them fundamentally aligned with modern progressive politics.
There is no “I don’t want to get political here” and the failure of the science community at large to recognize how embracing Bluesky as if it was a genuine solution to the unfolding catastrophe of science being defunded and destroyed is embarrassing. Those of us on the Fediverse should be kind, but also we should make fun of them for not using their brains. They clearly have them. Fucking use them you fools.
Bluesky is a for profit corporate venture, the same EXACT incentives that now have placed us all very much in danger and have placed the very funding structures of science in danger the world over (at least in US/European connected science communities) are at play in Bluesky and Scientists betray the begrudging respect the public has for their intelligence (even if they pretend to hate Scientists) by treating Bluesky like it is safe. Bluesky is not safe. This is no different than scientists endorsing any other thing that is fundamentally a threat to the health and safety of innocent people. It is just new, people are scared and scientists are largely too overwhelmed to see things for how they are.
At the end of the day, every Scientist needs to hear to their face that Bluesky is a threat to science, science education and the free access to knowledge in general the world over, they need to defend their choice to go on Bluesky anyways instead of Mastodon (both is fine tho) along the terms of what motivates their pursuit of studying and doing science. I don’t care if scientists are already overwhelmed and scared, they along with everyone else have all the information to understand why choosing Bluesky to throw the weight of science communication behind is dangerous, and it is unacceptable to give them a pass because 2025 is a terrifying mess. 2025 is a terrifying mess for reasons DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS DISCUSSION. Scientists should understand that better than almost anyone else if they are paying attention, and many do which is why Mastodon is full of scientists!
Bluesky is a public benefit corporation. That’s very different from for profit
It has investors, those investors are going to want money.
Sure, but the openness of the protocols, especially the portability of accounts, makes it hard for them to push negative changes on users.
Most scientists aren’t allowed to do stuff like that, or purely just don’t have the time.
Or know how. Just because they are scientists doesn’t mean that they are necessarily particularly computer literate. I once had to explain to a university professor that wireless electricity doesn’t exist, and the Wi-Fi is only for internet. So yeah.
I mean, wireless electricity tech does exist, it just sucks and is horribly inefficient at any reasonable distance.
Well there’s two possible implementations of wireless power transfer.
There’s the way we use to charge our phones, Which is just an electromagnetic effect with no real way to extend its range. That technology has progressed as far as it’s ever going to get.
The other way is through power beaming using infrared lasers and special crystals. That technology does have potential but is nowhere close to being consumer ready yet. One day a router may include both features but not today and certainly not in 2016 when this happened.
People have been able to extend the electromagnetic effect to a few feet, but yeah, there’s a reason why most just use the close range version we have today.
Here’s a demo from 2009: https://youtu.be/MgBYQh4zC2Y
Microwave transmission has also been explored in addition to lasers, as you say, but either way both methods involve power loss in energy conversion, and they both are very directional, making it impractical for consumer use.
But anyway, just wanted to say that the tech technically exists since it’s funny when normal people bring it up without knowing the limitations of current technology and physics.
What… Are you taking about? I know hundreds of scientists and the vast majority of them interact with social media just as much as normal people.
Using social media is far removed from operating your own publicly available social media server.
This coming from someone who is trying to get more mastodon usage in higher ed. Profs aren’t the ones who operate these things. Merely getting the approval to get the project started is an immense task.
University IT departments don’t want to be running some random Mastodon on the server anyway. It’s got nothing to do with the universities day-to-day operations it’s just an extra thing that would be required on top of what they already do.
Also the only university professors who would actually be able to run the server themselves will be those in the computer science domain. A biologist isn’t going to know how to do it any more than any random member of the public.
It doesn’t make any sense for the University or specific professors to officially host a fediverse community in the first place, it is the wrong system of governance and community ownership here. Something like a student club or independent association of professors and students should host fediverse communities that then become unofficially associated with the University and the University should be hands off unless something really egregious happens.
The only reason to create a fediverse server directly under the auspices of a University or under an official capacity for the University would be to use the fediverse server as a public communication tool (like how Universities and other institutions might use Twitter), which actually isn’t a bad idea but is totally separate from what people are suggesting here…
The thing about federation is there isn’t really any particular reason to even set up a community over simply using one that’s already in existence except possibly to enforce your own moderating rules.
I’d reckon that managing a social media server is more involved than just using social media.
Never worked in academia eh? Plenty of dumb (and, more importantly here, computer illiterate) people there too.
while I agree, the reality of the situation is that when you get down to comparing feature to feature, open source solutions tend to be technically inferior to proprietary ones.
I use linux because I hate microsoft, not because it’s more feature complete than windows (it isn’t).
I use lemmy because I hate u/spez, not because it’s more feature complete than reddit (it isn’t).
I use blender because it’s free and it’s actually kinda great, if all free and open source software was like blender, then it would be a no-brainer to use FOSS all of the time, and it would be easy to convince the normies to do the same.
also also
I’m using linux mint, i have minor complaints about it, but nothing worse than what microsoft is currently doing with windows. It’s just different, and that bothers me. middle click paste is the bane of my existence, but other people swear by it. Just before I switched over, I learned about windows 10’s built in emoji keyboard, and I really liked that. A year later (literally last week) I discovered a program that does most of what the windows emoji thingy did, and I can manually edit a keybind for the function to accomplish amost the same thing. FOSS, yay, it’s free if you don’t value your time in currency amounts. FOSS could be so good if only it were good.
Never meet your heroes. If a scientist is human, they’re as fallible as any other. Just like some teachers aren’t there because they’re passionate. Some legitimately are bad if you ever had parent teacher conferences. Not passion nor intelligence saves you from making poor choices
Just because they are using Mastodon they are bad people? What the hell kind of take is that?
I’m just saying, because someone is a scientist absolutely does not absolve them of human fallibility. I just don’t like the take of “because scientist, therefore smart or wise” and that’s not true, they’re just (hopefully) educated and credible in their one specific field and nothing else. I wouldn’t blindly trust a scientist’s choice of social network. It makes no sense. I’d instead trust their education on their specific field.
Right but Mastodon is irritating to use, isn’t it? It has actual problems. I think it’s intellectually dishonest to pretend that it doesn’t have problems and therefore anyone not using it is being ignorant.
I’ve been using mastodon for nearly a decade now. The major thing I think is missing from ActivityPub is a decentralized/federated way of doing auth. The ideal for me in ActivityPub is having a profile/DID service provider that you then can attach to services. This would theoretically be like having just a federated identity (or however many identities you want) that you can then go to a lemmy instance or mastodon instance etc and “log in with federated ID” like log in with Google but not dependent on a corporation.
Auth and identity in general is definitely the biggest hurdle with ActivityPub. Right now it’s a bunch of distinct and non-tied profiles, which isn’t necessarily bad, but many people would like an easier way of doing this. Instead of saying “which lemmy do I want to join” it’s just “which identity service do I want?” and then go to and use any mastodon or lemmy or Pixelfed service with that single account. There’s many ways to do this, but it’s definitely possible and it’s being looked into.
Why switch to BlueSky if you have Mastodon…
I’m on both and Mastodon is missing (at least in any easy to use way) most of the features that make Bluesky such a good destination:
- instant add subscribe lists
- subscribable block lists
- custom feeds/subscribable algorithms
- keyword/topic blocks
- nuclear block where you never see the blocked person again
- optional discover feed
- DM preferences
All these things (and more I’m sure I’m forgetting), make Bluesky very quick to get started with and very powerful for honing your feeds to be exactly how you want and free of harassment and trolling.
I am still trying with Mastodon, but it’s really slow going and I can fully understand why people wouldn’t bother. After a year I am way behind where I was in a week with Bluesky.
Thanks for the list! As someone who has never used any Twitter-like site before (I guess microblog is the right term…?), and recently made a profile on Bluesky only to support it (I have used it briefly ~3 times since joining): what are the pros of Mastodon that Bluesky doesn’t have?
Main one is that it doesn’t manipulate your feed with stuff “you might enjoy” so you can’t be easily manipulated by the people setting the algorithm. Of course, this is exactly why people find it hard. People want to be fed stuff and told what to consume.
Bluesky also has the option of doing this, or not.
As far as I can tell, the advantages of Mastodon over Bluesky are:
- Well implemented federation
- No “starter kits” which are just positive-feedback loops for popular accounts
- No “algorithm” which promotes popularity or engagement over quality or relevance
Bluesky’s main feed is totally algorithm free, it’s just the people you follow’s posts in chronological order, same as mastodon.
Starter kits are optional, but they allow you to get started in hours rather than months. For me, they made the difference between a vibrant and interesting feed well tailored towards my interests, and a very sparse feed that I didn’t use on Mastodon. For me they were the difference between a useful social network and a non-useful one.
Why switch to Mastodon when there is Misskey?
Why use Misskey when there is Hubzilla?
I’ve yet to find a multi language or English speaking misskey it appears they’re all Japanese
You could spin one up this evening if you wanted. Or go use catodon.social.
That’s not the point. The point is, there are reasons Mastodon is being rejected, just like there are reasons you seemingly cannot pay people to use a Misskey-based or Hubzilla-based website.
It’s not where the people are going, and the public or semi-public figures are going to follow the people.
Why are they selecting BlueSky over the Fediverse?
BlueSky is specifically designed as a drop-in Twitter replacement, it’s an easy transition, and tons of Twitter users have been advertising it for a long time. The Fediverse is comparatively obscure.
also mainstream professionals are going to bluesky, like press and corp PR. big step towards critical mass.
And it’s ridiculous because the difference between Mastodon and Twitter is minuscule.
I remember following some popular Twitter Head. Someone made a fake account on Mastodon and started getting followers but only posted once. Since then, his followers have grown to around 11k without any content at all! Imagine if it had been a real account. But the Twitter Head would rather switch to Bluesky instead. Such bullshit.
It really isn’t minuscule, it’s still confusing enough for the vast majority of people. Just the fact that there are different servers and them having to learn about that is enough to put people off. Anything more complicated than basic sign-up/in weeds out 90% of people, every tiny little thing they need to learn makes it less likely they’ll even think about using it.
This is obvious. The way you and many others here think about how knowledgeable, tech-literate and willing to lift just one extra finger the average person is isn’t correct, people are dumb and lazy. And it hurts the fediverse as a whole and slows adoption.
Your opinion and my reply here have been said thousands of times, I don’t understand how your kind of ignorance and misunderstanding is still so prevalent, I see it almost weekly.
your kind of ignorance and misunderstanding
I was with you up until this. I was taking about my perception but thanks for generalizing and passing judgement anyway, jerkface.
I also see your kind of bullshit regularly on here, with many not giving the benefit of the doubt, not asking follow up questions, and therefore assuming the worst takes. Every single time.
Because the Fediverse is a mess with atrocious UX. Choose the wrong server and you might find you are cut off from a large chunk of it because a mastodon.art mod didn’t like something that happened on your instance and servers copy blocklist from each other (not a theoretical example, mind you, something I learned a few months into being on one particular instance.).
Servers can have all sorts of rules you will have to carefully study or risk getting banned (some for example will only allow images with descriptions being shared, this includes boosts.)
In short, the amount of work expected to participate is just - never - going to draw in the average user.
The Fediverse experience starts with an unanswerable question: what server do you want to be on?
Most people will not have any way to answer that without knowing what the downstream impact will be. Mastodon people are working on smoothing that down, but it’s still a pretty fraught question. And if half a given community ends up on one server and half on another, they get fragmented and conversations and followers fizzle out.
Bluesky wants to tell people they’re not a single-node lock-in to avoid the Twitter effect, but it turns out that’s their key advantage.
The only thing that will guarantee they don’t end up like Twitter is if they revamp their corporate governance mechanisms, but they had to take VC money and haven’t come up with a long-term revenue model, so it’s not clear how they can avoid it.
The Fediverse experience starts with an unanswerable question: what server do you want to be on?
This is such a cop out and makes no sense. A “server” is basically just a website. The only reason we call them servers/instances is because they are are running the same software in the background and can communicate with each other - that’s it. So we put them all under common flags such as “Mastodon” for those who use the Mastodon “template”, and “Fediverse” for all the “templates” that can communicate with each other.
This is literally just a problem with marketing and communication, people hear “instances”/“servers” and they shit themselves because they can’t be bothered to do a bit of research. In reality they are just different websites that can communicate with each other. You have the “shakedown.social” website, the “dads.cool” website, the “bookwyrm.social” website, and plenty of others; they are all Twitter clones (Mastodon) and they all allow you to see the content posted on the others.
The email experience starts with an unanswerable question: what server do you want to be on?
Your email server doesn’t also run the group email list and all the join/drop/approve/ban operations. And if you bring your own email domain name, you can go somewhere else and get no disruption. But if you sign up for me@hotmail.com and hotmail bans you, you’ll lose all your connections and conversation history.
The canonical list of operations on a social media platform far exceed that of an email service, a bulletin board, or a messaging service group. It’s apples and rocket ships.
Bluesky is offering simple one-stop answers to a lot of these concerns. Fediverse needs to answer all these, plus address the whole long-term financial sustainability question.
I would assume the same reason anyone chooses it over the fediverse, because they want their content to be easily discoverable.
What’s blocking Mastodon’s posts to be discoverable?
In order to discover someone’s posts on Mastodon, they need to be on the same instance as you, or someone else on your instance has to already be following them.
