loading . . . The Social Network That Can’t Sell Out: Understanding Mastodon vs. Bluesky In 2012, Facebook abandoned its experiment with user democracy, demonstrating how profit-driven platforms prioritize control over community input. Since 2009, the site had begun allowing users to vote on __certain__ new policy proposals for the site, establishing a sort of light democracy. Many heralded this move toward openness and user control. But when it came time to vote on maintaining this democratic system, Facebook set an impossible bar: they required 300 million votes to keep user governance alive. Despite 88% of voters supporting democracy, only 650,000 users participated. Democracy at Facebook was over.
Over and over again, we see examples of our commercial, profit-driven institutions choosing dictatorship over democracy. And that only makes sense. The profit motive is baked into the DNA of commercial social media. That’s why tech-savvy users have long been suspicious of corporate behemoths controlling our digital town squares. Enter the Fediverse, a network of decentralized social platforms built by and for users (If you’re new to this concept, check out my introduction to the Fediverse).
Now, as Donald Trump partners with X (formerly Twitter) CEO Elon Musk, users are once again searching for alternatives to the old social kingpins. Two major contenders have emerged: Mastodon and Bluesky. While both promise user control, their foundations tell very different stories about their futures.
****Meeting the Contenders – Mastodon and Bluesky****
Both platforms promise to give users more control over their data, and both offer refuge from the chaos of Twitter/X. But while they might seem similar on the surface, their fundamental structures tell very different stories about their futures. Mastodon–built as a non-profit and run by independent communities–has essentially made it impossible for itself to fall into the familiar pattern of social media “enshittifiction,” where platforms gradually become worse as they chase profits. Bluesky, despite its innovative technology and good intentions, is built on the same venture-capital-backed foundation that has led so many promising platforms to eventually prioritize shareholders over users. This structural difference isn’t just a technical detail, it’s the key to understanding why Mastodon–despite being slightly more challenging to get started with–represents our best chance at building a truly open “town square” of the internet that benefits everyone.
****The Power of True Decentralization****
Briefly, decentralization is what I’m talking about here.
In 2024, it might seem strange to imagine services not driven by profit. But since the beginning of the internet, millions of people have been building the technologies that power your digital life not for money, but for the love of creation. Linux, the open-source operating system running most servers (including this website’s), is a perfect example. The early social networks like LiveJournal and Friendster were passion projects, not profit centers.
This same spirit drives Mastodon and the Fediverse. Think of it like email: independent servers communicating through shared protocols, giving users complete control over their data and interactions. Decentralized, and non-commercial.
_**You can follow me atMastodon AND at Bluesky!**_
****Mastodon vs. Bluesky: A Tale of Two Futures****
Founded in 2016, Mastodon represents this ethos fully. Anyone can set up their own Mastodon server (called an ‘instance’), invite people to set up profiles on these instances (like email inboxes on a domain), and these servers can talk to each other, like emails from different domains talking to one another. Each instance is like a small community with its own rules and culture, but users can still follow and interact with people on other instances, just like you can email people that use different providers. This structure is maintained by a German non-profit organization that develops the core software but–crucially–doesn’t control the network itself. Think of it like a community garden rather than a corporate farm: while individual garden plots (instances) are tended by their own gardeners with their own rules, they’re all using the same basic tools and can share with each other. This community-driven approach means that no single entity can make sweeping changes that affect everyone else. And if users don’t like how their instance is being run, they can simply move to a different one, or start their own.
Bluesky emerged in 2019 as a project initiated by then-Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, who envisioned creating a new standard for social media. While it shares some open utopian aspirations with Mastodon, Bluesky takes a different approach. It operates through the Authenticated Transfer Protocol (AT Protocol), which uses Personal Data Servers to store user information and allows users to move between providers, similar to how you might switch cell phone carriers while keeping your phone number. The platform is intentionally built to feel familiar to Twitter users, from its interface to its algorithmic ‘What’s Hot’ feed (more on this later). While the AT Protocol is offered free and open source to developers, Bluesky itself is a centralized venture-backed startup, following the traditional Silicon Valley model that produced Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. This means that there’s one place to go to sign up for Bluesky, just like Twitter or Facebook (more on this later). However, this also means that, despite its good intentions, Bluesky will eventually face the same pressures that have led other social platforms to prioritize engagement and monetization over user experience – the very issues that drove many users to seek alternatives in the first place.
****The Real Difference: Algorithms vs. Agency****
Let’s be honest: getting started with Mastodon takes more effort. You need to choose an instance (though mastodon.social now offers easier sign-up), understand new concepts like federated timelines, and possibly set up a mobile app. But this complexity isn’t a bug, it’s a feature–and it’s a direct result of putting real power in users’ hands. Once you understand these basics, which typically takes just a few days of regular use, you’ll find yourself with something remarkable: a social media experience you can actually control, free from the manipulation of engagement algorithms and sponsored content.
Immediately after setting up Bluesky, and following the few people I knew, my “Discover” feed was all half naked men. Not that I MIND half-naked men, but I don’t need help discovering pictures of half-naked men. I’m on a social network to CONNECT with people over things we have in common and things we’re interested in. Not for porn. But this is the stuff that my friends were clicking “like” on on Bluesky, so the algorithm thought that’s what I’d be clicking “like” on. So the silo-ing begins immediately on Bluesky, just like on all of the commercial networks. Unlike Bluesky’s algorithmic “Discover” feed, Mastodon lets users control what they see through local and federated timelines. There’s no algorithm trying to build a psychographic profile based on weights and rules and delivering brainrot slop to serve you “engaging” (i.e. profitable) content, just genuine connections and discoveries.
****Why Structure Matters****
Mastodon’s structure as a non-profit foundation isn’t just a legal technicality, it’s a shield against the forces that typically degrade social platforms online. The software is funded through community donations and grants, meaning it answers directly to its users rather than shareholders or advertisers. Remember when Facebook pretended to do that for three years and some change? This is the real deal. Each independent instance can set its own funding model, whether through user donations, institutional support, or community subscriptions, but crucially, there’s no central authority that can force instances to implement ads or algorithm changes. This distributed funding model might seem less ‘efficient’ than venture capital, but that’s exactly the point: it prevents any single entity from gaining enough power to override user interests in pursuit of profit. By contrast, Bluesky’s venture-backed structure follows a familiar and concerning pattern. While it’s currently free and experimental, history has shown us what happens when venture capital meets social media. The same story has played out repeatedly: a platform launches with bold promises about user empowerment, gains massive investment, and initially focuses on growth and user experience. But eventually, those investors expect returns. First comes algorithmic feeds to boost engagement, then targeted advertising, then increasingly aggressive data collection and monetization. We’ve seen this transformation happen to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and countless others. Bluesky’s technical protocol might be decentralized, but its corporate structure contains the same seeds of eventual enshittification that have spoiled so many promising platforms before it.
****The Path Forward****
While I appreciate that Bluesky has introduced many people to the concept of decentralized social media, it doesn’t solve the structural problems that plague commercial networks. It’s a friendlier interface over the same profit-driven system that gave us news feed enshittification, algorithmic brainrot and surveillance capitalism.
The future of social media lies in true community ownership. By choosing Mastodon, we’re not just picking a Twitter alternative, we’re supporting a fundamentally different vision of what social media can be. The future of social media depends on us. By choosing platforms like Mastodon, we champion community-driven technology over profit-driven manipulation. Let’s build a better digital town square together—join the Fediverse today! https://phillipjreese.com/the-social-network-that-cant-sell-out-understanding-mastodon-vs-bluesky/
