Thanks for the thread. I agree with your recommendations: Bluesky needs to publish a clear and convincing "trust story"; and peopel should be very skeptical about the long-term possibilities of Bluesky.

Also, on the moderation front, Dorsey was replaced on #Bluesky board by Mike Masnick, who's also very libertarian. Masnick's a lot smarter than Dorsey, and does understand the importance of content moderation. Still, one of the examples Masnick's "Protocols not platforms" paper that inspired Bluesky (and Nostr) uses to discuss about why the protocol approach is better is that it allows Alex Jones fan to still reach his audience: "those who don’t wish to be bothered with his nonsense need not deal with it; those who do wish to see it still have access to it."

knightcolumbia.org/content/pro…

I still see Bluesky as a useful short-term Twitter alternative (Meta and Threads are already doing all the things that Bluesky is likely do in the future, it's a lot easier to get up and going on Bluesky than Mastodon, and Blacksky is the only thing I know of in the decentralized world that's a good path for Black Twitter. Still, even without all the important points you make, and the "we don't have to ban Alex Jones" factor , they're a venture-funded startup, so once they need to monetize they're very likely to turn to an exploitative business model. So while it's situationally useful, it's not a promising long-term base.