zarkanian

That's true for any social network. It's only useful if a lot of people are using it, but a lot of people won't use it until it becomes useful. That's the catch-22 that keeps new social networks from getting off the ground.

Would the relays be connected, though? Or would each one be an entirely different ecosystem?

I don't know about that. The big issue, for me, is that it isn't actually decentralized.

Instances are run through a central "relay" which is controlled by Bluesky HQ, so it isn't decentralized like, say, Mastodon is.

Even if you aren't Cory, you have to face leaving behind the people who won't switch (which will be most of them).

Yes, because it's so easy to get people to switch to a different service!

I tried to get my friends to move from Facebook to Diaspora. How many of them did? ZERO. Not even the ones who like to talk about how much they hate Facebook.

Look what it took to peel off users from Twitter! The last straw had to be Elon getting a dictator elected. And even then, it's only a fraction of users.

Well, if you're that curious, there is a book about it. The Wikipedia article goes into some detail about what the systems were used for.

They didn't just truck people into the camps and immediately kill them, so they had to at least track capacity.

There isn't a workers' party, either. The US is one of the few industrialized nations that doesn't have one.

There are actual statistics in this article, unlike these which I think you made up.

You sound like those people saying that COVID was no big deal because "more people die in auto accidents". How many people have to be affected before you deem it newsworthy?

Bluesky gives you the option to choose an instance, too.

Mastodon has one big, official node, too, though: joinmastodon.com.

How is it easier to use?