I don't actually see how Lemmy is much different. Most users are not self hosting on Lemmy either, you're trusting your data to a 3rd party. The main difference seems to be that there's much more centralisation on bsky.

I think it's entirely reasonable to be wary of any service, be ready to delete your account if it goes to shit or whatever it is you need to do to feel safe.

But right now, I like blue sky. I've had far more positive interactions on there than I ever had on twitter (even before musk took it over), the lists feature that lets you pre-emptively block entire swathes of dickheads is a game changer (I just block one group, anyone Maga) and I'm having a good time.

I expect I'll get downvoted for this but honestly I don't care, the world has gone to shit far too much for me to give a crap about what internet strangers think over my own health and wellbeing and right now I'm having a good time and will not apologise for it.

The second that stops, I'll be leaving bsky.

[–] rako@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 points 1 day ago

No, the main argument is that the main relay is, and for the foreseeable future will be operated by bluesky. This means that bluesky can decide what is and isn't visible, but that's not my biggest issue: to me the bigger problem is that bluesky sees everything that everyone says or thinks about anything.

Yes, it is possible to change. As TFA says:

But every counter-argument to the concerns above rests on the same foundation: technically, users can leave. Technically, you can self-host. Technically, you can run your own relay. The capability exists at every layer. But people don't do these things. They never have with any protocol. Not email, not RSS, not XMPP. The default wins. Always.

It doesn't matter that a few can be free: the vast majority goes where the lowest friction is because they have their life to live, and the lowest friction leads to the centralized bluesky

[–] 73ms@sopuli.xyz 26 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You're right that the issue isn't just trusting a third party in general, that's how it is for most users on Lemmy or Mastodon too.

The difference isn’t whether you personally run a server. It’s whether the network depends on a single company.

Bluesky operating basically all of the infrastructure on that network means:

they decide moderation policy and what content gets boosted or hidden for everyone
they alone can change the rules for access and in general (ads, pay to be seen etc.)
they can de-prioritize or cut off third-party infrastructure
if the company fails, pivots or is pressured legally (I'm sure the current US government could never do such a thing), the network can effectively collapse

Here on Lemmy there is no single company that has all that power. If your admin goes bad there are real options to move to and the network will still exist even if they shut their service down. You also have much more leverage over here because you have those options and no operator is drawing in tens or hundreds of millions from investors who get to make the decisions.

[–] Scrollone@feddit.it 4 points 2 days ago

I agree. But it's a bit scary even for Lemmy, given that all the most active communities are currently hosted on the same 1 or 2 biggest instances.

Also, see what recently happened to LemmyNSFW...

[–] alonsohmtz@feddit.uk 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The main argument against bsky is that they’re still holding all of your data, unless you self host your own server.

That's not the main argument against it. The main argument is that it's not federated.

[–] Blisterexe@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago

Bluesky is federated though. Like, you can selfhost every part of it and communicate with bsky users just fine: see wafrn and blacksky.

You can argue that it's not decentralised because one instance has 99% of the users though