While I appreciate them getting to the "speech v. reach" thing; Mastodon still feels long-run smarter out of simplicity (if short-run less fun or useful because Mastodon feed curation is definitely harder)
The main question, to me, is: If a hypothetical (likely wealthy or powerful) bad actor wants to put their thumb the scales here, how can they?
And this article REALLY hand-waved that away very poorly, with the whole "oh, I don't really know how the feeds work" bit. Makes me very suspicious that they know good and darn well not only how the feeds will work, but that they understand that this is where the power and/or money is and will try to keep a hold of that.
I don't think "oh, I don't really know how the feeds work" is the best summary. Let me quote the author:
> Feeds are a recent addition to atproto, and therefore, while they do exist, they may not be feature complete just yet, and may undergo some change in the future. We’ll see. They’re working just fine from my perspective, but I haven’t been following the lower level technical details.
One paragraph above for some more context:
> This to me is one of the killer features of BlueSky over other microblogging tools: total user choice. If I want to make my own [feed] algorithm, I can do so. And I can share them easily with others.
The main question, to me, is: If a hypothetical (likely wealthy or powerful) bad actor wants to put their thumb the scales here, how can they?
And this article REALLY hand-waved that away very poorly, with the whole "oh, I don't really know how the feeds work" bit. Makes me very suspicious that they know good and darn well not only how the feeds will work, but that they understand that this is where the power and/or money is and will try to keep a hold of that.