Post

I do actually like what Bluesky could have been, the idea of a real decentralized social media with a free and open API based on a complex graph network. I'm not even against the blocking feature, but I think it could have been handled differently. But,

Several things went wrong: 1. Blocklists are one-sided, can't be removed, and allows power users to blanket ban and slander others, taking control of the network. 2. It should never have implemented dedicated moderation. Moderation should be handled by node owners and users.

3. Likewise, nodes should have been able to defederate or disconnect from other nodes. 4. Verification is stupid. Verification should be obvious and inherent, not a centralized body. For example, if someone's handle is "@cnn.net" that already certified that they're a journalist.

How's that different from Mastodon? Mastodon has massive trouble with user identity. Someone can't transfer their identity to another node without starting from scratch. The goal of Bluesky should have been to make a portable system that enforces single user identity and history.

Bluesky started with this goal but the population thought it was Twitter 2. So they demanded that everything should be centralized, with strong central moderation, and a governing body (whom they hate). A lot of journalists wanted to make a home on Bluesky and instead of--

--using handles as a verification system, they wanted a centralized verification like Twitter does, which enforces "de facto fame", and not real inherent verifiability like email. Blocklists became a tool for power users to tighten control of the site and limit--

--discoverability, by snowballing their own reputation. This made new population decline over time and formed cliques who'll be there forever, but will prevent growth in the future and will ultimately kill it.