Decentralized platforms based on open protocols, such as Mastodon and Bluesky, have been designed from the ground up to prioritize user choice and agency—without needing permission from a corporate gatekeeper. This is most apparent on Bluesky

Tells you that you can take your social media back from big tech then casually recommends Bluesky. Gimme a break.

Also if you want your news free of the constant noise of social media, RSS still exists and it's still beautiful.

Big Tech doesn't run social media. It runs algorithmic advertising platforms.

The majority of people using algorithmic advertising platforms are not content creators, they're consumers (if you're reading this, you're probably not in the majority). They have no interest is active participation in "social media". They're in it for the entertainment, the distraction, the memes, the algorithm telling them what they should care about. You can't remove this feature and expect these users to find content for themselves.

You can argue the pros and cons all you want, your reasoning may be factual and altruistic, but you will not get a substantial portion of content consumers to migrate to platforms that require more effort. They know what they're signing up for. They have no interest in "reclaiming social media".

Bluesky and Mastodon are fantastic platforms that, in my opinion, revive some of the core tenants of social microblogging. But this is like comparing a bulletin board system (BBS) to the Yahoo! homepage. Some people want to be involved, some people want to be told.

One of these platforms offers a greater profit making opportunity than the other. If one allows people to make money and another does not, what's the motivation for the most influential of creators to embrace the latter? And then what's the motivation of the consumers to embrace a platform that lacks the most influential creators? (Again, if you're reading this, you likely aren't a member of the majority.)

Threads isn't the answer to anything.