The thread discussed the question of why people tend to choose proprietary microblogging platfroms (i.e. Bluesky or Threads) over the free and open source microblogging platform, Mastodon.
People have suggested making a portal/quiz for instance signups, but that adds to the barrier. There are also problems like how in-depth and inclusive it should be. It reminds me of Linux distro pickers that often suggest weird niche distros.
There are already big/default instances in the Fediverse though but there are people who actively discourage this. Maybe Mastodon just had a bad start and Bluesky learned from that. I wonder if Bluesky's PDS will be like Fediverse instances though. Many Fediverse instances are built around shared interests but the PDS just looks like a glorified handle.
Personally, I think the Fediverse discourse should shift to designing social media with decentralization in mind rather than mimicking mainstream social media with a "decentralized twist". I don't think the Fediverse will ever be as big as Twitter, but it doesn't have to be. It just needs to be sustainable enough to keep new conversations going.
Doesn't answer the question but maybe it's worth sharing anyway.
They look the same to me. I had a look at Bluesky yesterday, every PDS I could find was just using their domain as username, I could never find a [email protected]
I thought subdomains were people using PDS. So I don't know anyone running a PDS. I might try running one just to see what it's like and actually learn the network.
I don't think they're using a PDS though. In fact, it's really hard to tell who's using a PDS or not. I'm not sure what the effect of this is in community-building and I wonder if control over the network is really decentralized. This is really... confusing.