The point being made is that it isn't very different. Focusing on the technicalities ignores the broad strokes of it. Missing the forest for the trees and all that.

The discussion of Bluesky's flaws, drawbacks, misleading claims of "federation", etc... has already been done to death.

This also isn't debate club. "What I'd like OP to address" good god.

But in the interest of good faith, here's the cliff notes: It's run by a corporation headed by one of Twitter's original founders, and there's not significant evidence it will not fall to the same path to shittiness that Twitter did. It is only technically federated, not actually in practice. It is not fully open source, as key portions of the infrastructure code have not been released. Of the portions that have been released, it is nearly impossible to run your own node due to the major amount of storage space required. Beyond that, all communications must ultimately go through BlueSky's centralized infrastructure. There's no point to running your own node because their centralized infrastructure won't talk with it. No one has actually been able to do anything more than host their own profile in regards to federation. At this point there is no financial incentive for them to invest money in solving the issues preventing it from being able to be truly federated.

Most of all, mastodon already exists as a mature system for federated microblogging without the major drawbacks of bluesky.