So, much of what you stated makes my head spin, maybe it’s due to the fact that it’s early but I highly doubt that’s the reason.

I would argue that’s centralisation. Instances are inherently centralised, they own the user identity, relationships and data. A user “migration” which isn’t really a migration it’s an alt account on another server, if that server is blocking or is blocked then that users social graph can be significantly impacted. There’s no way to really migrate their content.

The login wall is set by the user not by Bluesky. It’s a privacy setting

How can I contact you?

How do we keep track of the project and support it?

Anyone can request bans. Bluesky didn’t ban anyone. If you think the EU couldn’t come down on admins & servers in the EU you’re wrong

Hilarious at all of the uninformed comments. They didn’t take down any accounts and two nothing not even federation prevents this. I know many of you like to play tough online but in the real world where governments have significant influence even outside of their jurisdictions people have fear. Governments have easily resources to turn peoples lives upside down. There’s nothing stoping Trump nor the EU from submitting requests and threads to any fedi admin users. Just because other servers could be spent up means little to nothing if large server and multiple servers are shutdown due to the government. That destroys people’s access, content and social graphs, the primary reason they’re using socials to begin with

This has long existed. It’s an Open Social Web client called SoraSns

I get what you lot are getting at but my objection is this, at least when it comes to the Mastodon part of the Fediverse it gets advertised as the nicest social experiences. Mastodon not the Fediverse has a moat on civility, some of the most nasty experiences I’ve seen people have is on fedi. That creates a very different expectation and thus people don’t want to hear “that’s the internet for you”. If it wasn’t marketed as such then I’d completely agree with the points being made.

Can you share the proposal? ActivityPods is something else. https://activitypods.org/

Can you site your sources?

Also, it’s so toxic yet he’s using the account still and bridged his fediverse account. If I encountered next level toxicity that’s not what I’d be doing

This person is a liar and just wants the Mastodon pat on the back. For some reason people on the fediverse can’t just enjoy their platforms and work to make them better. They have to lie about Bluesky and Nostr. I’ve been on Bluesky since the beginning. I’ve seen significantly more toxic people and content on fedi than I’ve ever have on Bluesky. People are happy to be away from X, they’re trying to promote a positive and supportive culture. There’s tonnes of minorities on Bluesky

What’s different about the fediverse? There’s mute lists, block lists, keyword filters, they have a third party company plus a trust and safety team. They’ve taken down plenty of accounts. So again what’s no moderation? What’s better moderation and tooling on fedi? I’ve seen CSAM on Mastodon yet not on Bluesky

Define decentralisation

Nos.social is one, there is https://github.com/atrifat/nostr-filter-relay amongst other tools integrated into some relays.

You said that like that’s been reality, I’m not going based on simply what’s possible but what’s happened when instances suddenly shutdown

If the same came be achieved why hasn’t it been? It is a matter of individualism. People often see instances as communities, I don’t agree with this assessment with the exception of coop and special interest instances.

But you weren’t discussing Twitter you were discussing Bluesky. They built it with decentralised identities so that users owned their identities and can move about freely. You saying people could “easily” move to another instance isn’t reality. People already find the Fediverse too difficult, as you and I discussed under a different thread people actually care about their data which also includes their posting history. Humans by nature do not like change. People complain about Mastodon.social being too big to block. So, if people that want to block mastodon.social due to what they believe is poor content moderation but feel they can’t because of its size how likely that people would find it “easy” to move to another instance ?

Same thing if some Billionaire purchased Mastodon.social & Mastodon.online. You’d have most of the fedi under their control

That’s not true it’s not entirely punted to the end user. It starts with the relay operators just like it does instances. All of the same moderation tools that users have on instances and with clients Nostr users have too, so I’m not really sure about that comment. Also, maybe it’s because I’m a US citizen but I don’t get what so problematic about individualism and allowing users the ability to drive their own experiences. You mention the keys that’s still under user control as if instances have not gone down with users identities, content and social graphs Usability worse than anything on AP that’s very broad. Go point for point with comparisons You can filter out any content related to Bitcoin.

What flaws?