Because silicon valley thinks it can define reality however it wants and keep telling us not to believe our lying eyes.

Weirdly this seems to work better on techy people who don't like thinking about politics but understand the technical details of this extremely well than it does on normie progressives because progressives just see the obvious predatory reality and don't get distracted in minutiae connected to very obviously empty promises.

The tech press does not ever talk to progressives though...

So why does everyone keep referring to Bluesky as decentralized or even comparable to the fediverse

They call it marketing, I call it propaganda.

Because, despite being wildly impractical, it's technically built on tech that COULD be decentralized. Only recent a new host launched called Black sky. So it is no longer just one host. But it's been one host for so long it almost doesn't matter because so few people will switch.

I don't understand it at all. Where are all the supposed blueskys? It's so easy to fact check.

So why does everyone keep referring to Bluesky as decentralized or even comparable to the fediverse

Parrot the marketing hyperbole.

The enshitification continies.

It's where the useful idiots are being herded. They are using it because it's "not twitter" and other people are influencing them. They don't care about decentralization.

Because it is decentalised, and beats the fediverse in many aspects.

True

But....I came here just for the gloating fediverse content.

What else could there be?

I mean I agree... it's kind of the constant crux isn't it?

The IT nerds pick a protocol that's uncontrolled, you need to select options and servers, because... well obviously that's kind of the definition of uncontrolled.

Some big name with big VC backing makes a big platform, makes it simple as possible, no choices, no control but good defaults. Average joes all flock there, build huge communities, users happy. Obviously the bulk of the creative types, celebrities etc... that most people care about flock there.

Big corp or VCs start demanding more monetization, or political censorship, or whatever kind of enshittification they inevitably always will. Users complain, but it all continues to amplify... open communities announce "hey we've got our alternative here", they say "thanks but nah that's too complicated, and you don't have the users that I want to see anyway". People complain more... and either adapt and accept the enshitification as normal... or maybe another big VC backed individual or other corp opens an alternative and pulls off the impossible critical mass goal, and process repeats.

I don't really know the solution, just know the pattern. Bluesky is IMO the new twitter... fundimentally I don't see it as super different than the old twitter. Only way I really see everything working is if say... a corporate backed giant actually played nicely and allowed interoperability with a federated protocol that's actually... well hostable.

It's basically like exactly what happens out in the real world... walmart comes offers better convenience and lower prices than local competitors... local economy adapts to walmart, individual stores shut down... half of owners, etc... forced to working for walmart for garbage pay.

It would be fair to say something like that if you yourself made content but your last post was 3 months ago lol

I'm pretty happy with engagement in the Fediverse.

If your idea is that the replies to every post look the same to any user, anywhere, at any time

This is only true of Bluesky because everyone is using Bluesky's infrastructure at the moment. If Bluesky ever deindexes someone and they start posting to an alternative relay, you suddenly don't have a guarantee of a full view of a post's replies.

portable identity

So like when bluesky starts having to pay back their investors I can portable my identity to.... one of the other equally populated blueskies out there?

... but at least the rest of their system is actually substantially more decentralized architecturally than AP is.

In the blog post you linked, neither the author or myself came to your conclusion:

However, I stand by my assertions that Bluesky is not meaningfully decentralized and that it is certainly not federated according to any technical definition of federation we have had in a decentralized social network context previously. To claim that Bluesky is decentralized or federated in its current form moves the goalposts of both of those terms, which I find unacceptable.

Lemmy has about 40,000 monthly active users. Lemmy.world accounts for about 15,500 of that. That's about 40%.