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.

[–] alonsohmtz@feddit.uk 4 points 1 month 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 1 month 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

load more comments (3 replies)