I've listened to it. It's so vague when they say "Bluesky will be more decentralized". They have been saying this for years, and a bunch of their users read that as "federation", assuming they will become like Mastodon (because that's the only example of decentralized social network they know), but in fact Bluesky has never planned to be like Mastodon at all and all their future-planned-upcoming "decentralization" updates are irrelevant things like people being able to host their own PDS. At some point it becomes a little more clear that Masnick doesn't have anything in his mind about the "decentralization" other than what Frazee says in the article above: their entire vision consists of this competition between all-powerful "apps". Masnick says something like "if we have this in place then Bluesky won't be able to become evil because if they do then everybody will migrate to a competitor overnight", and I've seen Frazee also say this in the past, that the entire point of ATProto was that "if everybody realized that Bluesky was doing bad things they could all switch to Skyblue". I don't know how they don't see how that is impossible to work. A huge part of the current Bluesky userbase is already furious with them, but they're not leaving because of their network effect, it is an immense cost to leave, so the platform can continue to do a lot of bad things, exactly like Facebook and everything else. Maybe ATProto makes it 5% easier to setup a competitor that can reuse existing software, but software was never the problem. Right after Masnick said that Rabble started giving the example of how the existence of GitLab places a check on GitHub, an the example couldn't be more appropriate. Despite the fact that GitHub doesn't have anywhere near the network-effect that a social networking website has, still the little bit it gets is enough to prevent anyone from leaving at all, even if the overall hate for GitHub has been growing for years.