Treating it responsibly in this case would mean actually offering a recommendation algorithm that is free of corporate interest, then. To go along with your own simile, you can't really go up to a junkie and say "Hey, you should really consider giving up heroin and having a salad instead. It's better for you." and expect it to be a convincing argument. Which is why Bluesky is succeeding and Mastodon isn't.

[–] FauxLiving 3 points 18 hours ago

It also means decoupling the recommendation system from people's feeds.

Having a "you may like this" section is a lot less abusable than "the next item in your doomscroll is ".

Bluesky is just another Twitter. Everything that happened to Twitter can happen to Bluesky. It's not fundamentally changing anything except trading Elon for a different owner.

It's not a bad change, people want Twitter after all... but it isn't fixing any problems in the underlying incentive structures or algorithm control.

The core problem is that curated feeds allow the owner to substitute their recommendations in place of recommendations that would interest you.

Until the owner can't do that, the social network is always one sale away from being the next Twitter/Truth Social.

Bluesky is fixing social media by changing the owner, Mastodon/ActivityPub is fixing social media by getting rid of the owner.

I think the latter is the better choice for how to structure these things.