Administered by:
close enough
@esm@eblu 
Correct!
what's funny about this is that this is the second post from you I saw after moving to my own pds
@eblu #Mastodon is great, but #Bluesky should not be said to be decentralised in the same way. The recent pro-trump censorship was inexcusable and showed they very much had central control of the network.
Also practically the way the code is written means that an instance is way to large for local group hosting, like we see on Mastodon. It’s like the power plant vs solar panels debate, only one is really distributed.
Don’t platform Bluesky.
Back Mastodon.
@eblu@richiekhoo original post was a joke
@eblu oh all good. Have a great day!
@richiekhoo @eblu Yep. There's a difference between "technically decentralizable" and "actually decentralized", and similarly, a difference between "actually decentralized" and "meaningfully decentralized". BlueSky is **at best**, "actually" decentralized, but there's a lot of question as to whether it can really even be technically decentralized. Mastodon (i.e. the Fediverse) is already meaningfully decentralized. Bluesky doesn't have the runway to get there.
@eblu@shellsharks @richiekhoo both of you are reading too far into this and replying to a post where the joke is that I spelled "mastodon" wrong and messed up the capitalization of "Bluesky" on purpose. there is literally no subtext here
@eblu @richiekhoo I mean. I said what I said. Don't change nothin' for me friend 
But y'know, to each their own!
@eblu @richiekhoo Also, I'm realizing that I was responding to richie and hadn't even seen your original post eblu. So in this case it doesn't apply to ya! 
@shellsharks @eblu wait arent we in agreement?
Said plainly: If you support practical realworld decentralised social media, dont use Bluesky, get behind Mastodon.
You agree?
A "topic relevant but unsolicited rant" or something in the cw field would've probably avoided any adversity here.