So I thought that BlueSky was set up just like Lemmy in that it was fully decentralized into a sort of “terrorist cell” structure that wasn’t focused on profits, but then found out that BlueSky has a CEO. Since this is a business, what makes BlueSky fundamentally different from Twitter or Instagram?
I feel like so long as a social media platform exists through monetization (in some form or another private companies need to make money), we are ultimately replacing one dictator with another.
Technically it supports federation, similar to Lemmy. But there’s still only one instance. I don’t know if it’s due to the immaturity of software or something else. If someone want’s to try the code is there.
I think the presence of ActivityPub (basis of Lemmy) already attracted most people willing to bother with hosting an instance so the potential adopters are not very incentivized to experiment with another thing.
The link is to their open repos. Which is example implementations of their protocol, their web/phone apps, stuff like that.
Not their actual instance code.
You can’t run your own bkuesky instance
From what I’ve read on Mastodon, only part of it is federated. Other parts are administrated centrally through Bluesky. And the parts that do federate require so much bandwidth and processing power that self-hosting isn’t an option; you’d have to have a large infrastructure to do it.
One big thing it has over Mastodon is same migration and quote tweets, and other UX, some of which Mastodon is fundamentally against. A lot of people there don’t like quote tweets and want to build their social network without them. I’m not as sure why they can’t get their act together with moderation.