• anachronist@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    19 hours ago

    I read Chris Webber’s essay and I kinda agree. Bluesky is really just another twitter.

    That being said I think we are entering into an era of diversification, not perhaps how we would like (through federation) but rather, through people understanding finally that the platform itself is making a choice in what kind of content it serves. We used to have this idea that the platform was just a “neutral third party” like a phone company. But in fact, it’s a publisher with its own editorial line. It pushes that line through algorithms and what voices it wants to amplify or suppress.

    As people understand this more, they are going to be much more critical of not just “the media” but also “the platform” and why it chose to show that media to its audience.

    • realitista@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      It’s more like a better Twitter

      Mastodon and Xitter are missing a lot of the quality of life features of Bluesky.

      • Good user verification
      • Add lists
      • Block lists
      • Subscribable topic feeds
      • Configurable algorithms

      These things make Bluesky very easy to get started with and more powerful even than Xitter was. It’s simply a better product if you have any requirements other than federation. Getting a good feed up and running doesn’t take more than an hour or two. It’s basically possible now on Twitter and it’s very difficult on Mastodon.

      Yes, its federation is more or less bullshit, but for most users, that feature is a distant priority when compared to the rest.