[ZacnyLos]

> it's basically a carbon copy of twitter circa 2015, down to an almost identical UI. Except that there's no monetization, no ads, no growth hacking, which means that in the main features are there to serve the user

Wow, that's just like Mastodon.

[Pxtl]

BlueSky's big killer features that Mastodon fails at:

1) Better (optional) algorithmic feeds. Mastodon's "explore" is weaker than Bluesky's "popular with friends" and "discover"

2) Quote-tweets.

3) Easier onboarding. Mastodon forces you to care about which server you're on and it does matter and migrating later is hard. Meanwhile, BSky has "starter packs" that people can produce for each other with lists of users to follow to easily jump into a community.

4) Username-as-domain is better than the Mastodon "confirmed links in profile" thing for self-verified accounts.

I wish the properly-federated OSS community-funded one had won but I'll take either to be done with Twitter.

[panic]

I don't think either platform is going to "win" in the sense of reaching the size and influence of Twitter, but both will hopefully be more resilient than Twitter was.

[Pxtl]

Yeah, "resilience" is my big concern. After Facebook and Twitter, I'm mostly concerned about a social network getting compromised by a moneyed political interest. Obviously I'm a liberal so I have my political opinion on the interest here, but the point stands for any alignment - I'd rather see something like Mastodon where people can fund and run their own servers that reflect their own values and interests, and then those servers can federate and defederate as is appropriate.

Basically: governance matters.