The #Mastodon vs #Bluesky comparisons that focus on protocol comparisons or ease-of-use in various ways (Mastodon's server choice, Bluesky's until-just-now ridiculous bookmark pins) are valuable but don't get at the basic reason why Bluesky is Bluesky. Which is that it carefully attracted everyone who didn't want to be on Twitter but who was primarily motivated by Internet clout a.k.a. "reach".
@richpuchalsky The reason I don't think that's right is because if BlueSky was nothing but a Twitter alternative then it wouldn't have wasted all of the time and resources to build out the distributed infrastructure.
That stuff was really expensive!
BlueSky is BlueSky to be distributed and out from under the control of one corporation. Without that so many of these other pros and cons and drama would never have emerged.
