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.
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:
And the user is like:
And them they get lectured for 10+ minutes over some tech concepts that look alien to them.
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.
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.
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.