@waifu I wrote about Bluesky last year (and I think again half a year ago).

In a nutshell:

1) Dorsey didn't like being seen as the bad guy who took down people's accounts. He wanted to have his cake and to eat it too.

So, he promised federation, even though that has turned out to be a grift (if someone is being moderated for a petty reason, that doesn't change that) and has never come which brings me to the next point...

2) Policy was a mess and looked like it was written by someone with absolutely no policy knowledge. Going by the discourse, it doesn't look like it's gotten better. It might be one thing for a noob admin to come up with for their five friends but this service purports to be a general social network.

When I previously covered it, one part seemed to be directly lifted from conspiracists who don't like dark subjects... The problems with policy probably involve the next point...

3) They made the mistake of starting it as some sort of "club" for Silicon Valley type people and others. They should have opened it up from the outset.

Because, they spent a fair bit of time marketing to these kinds of people, you might see takes from a couple of Silicon Valley pundits who are more optimistic about it, even though if you dig into it, the site looks practically awful.

Now, it's harder to pivot to being a general social network, which is what it was supposed to be from the beginning. It feels "over professional".

4) It cosplays as a non-profit, rather than a company, but it is actually a company, except without the good parts of being a company.