Musk has the president-elect in his pocket and Musk hates BlueSky. The goal is to be the only source of propaganda and let right-wing conspiracies fly unchecked on social media.
That’s a bit reductive. What says that Bluesky doesn’t have their flavor of propaganda that suits their preferences? That is, what makes the Bluesky perspective more valid other than just being on a platform that hates Twitter?
About anything that is currently legal and permitted on Twitter seems to be specifically prohibited by design (and can’t be opted out of wrt moderation) in Bluesky. If the Mastodon case is any guide, there will be a great effort to ensure that nothing wrt software can conflict with it.
> What says that Bluesky doesn’t have their flavor of propaganda that suits their preferences?
Nothing. They probably do.
> That is, what makes the Bluesky perspective more valid other than just being on a platform that hates Twitter?
Nothing. It probably isn't.
> About anything that is currently legal and permitted on Twitter seems to be specifically prohibited by design
Trump's FCC chief has signaled he would like to remove Section 230 which would make these things that are prohibited a downside for BlueSky and open them up to litigation and I doubt they have the wallet to litigate like Musk does.
