[AgentME]

Bluesky is architected so you can export your data and follows and followers to your own or someone else's infrastructure at any time. There are some groups that have taken that offer and moved off of Bluesky's infrastructure (see Blacksky). The fact that most people aren't doing that is a sign that people are happy with how Bluesky-the-company is running things. What's the issue?

[kevinak]

Most people were happy with Twitter as well

[AgentME]

And Bluesky is better because you're not locked in and can export your posts, follows, and followers off of their infrastructure if they start being evil or you randomly feel like it. Companies like Twitter effectively wield network effects to stop people from leaving. All of one's activity on Twitter increases the sunk cost to keep them on Twitter in a way that's not true for Bluesky.

[newsoftheday]

I generally liked Twitter before but not as much as now, since now it's not so heavily trolled by far left activists.

[esseph]

That's a very strong statement to make.

[zem]

whether you agree or not, asking "what's the issue" misses the point very badly, since the article is almost entirely about what the issue is (i.e. that most people will not change defaults and the default is to centralise on the bluesky servers)

[AgentME]

The fact that the system is built around this escape hatch makes it miles better than almost all other social networks. An escape hatch doesn't need to be used by most people to be valuable.

[AlienRobot]

It's weird to focus on that when there isn't a single thing in software that doesn't suffer from "everyone will just use the default anyway"