I feel like we’re supposed to believe Bluesky is going to become some open standard utopia like the Fediverse, but I don’t think it’s anywhere close, nor is it ever going to be.
-
@heliomass You're not a rube, so that makes sense.
@PatrickoftheG Succinctly put!
-
@heliomass Nah, total open washing. Who else is running ATproto? Can they just extend the spec and expect everyone else to follow suit? It's unlikely BlueSky will ever be willing to actually let anyone else join in on the market as an equal player.
@abmurrow I agree. I think you’ve gotten to the crux of the matter.
-
I feel like we’re supposed to believe Bluesky is going to become some open standard utopia like the Fediverse, but I don’t think it’s anywhere close, nor is it ever going to be.
@heliomass strange take, bsky PBC has done basically everything they needed so far to make atproto "bsky PBC-proof". What makes you think otherwise?
-
@heliomass Nah, total open washing. Who else is running ATproto? Can they just extend the spec and expect everyone else to follow suit? It's unlikely BlueSky will ever be willing to actually let anyone else join in on the market as an equal player.
@abmurrow @heliomass there's at least one reasonably active AT Proto alternative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacksky
-
@abmurrow @heliomass there's at least one reasonably active AT Proto alternative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacksky
@hermzz @heliomass I've heard of this before but never really took a look at it.
Its seems pretty cool! Fairly independent, and looks like it is based on a slightly different stack, which is nice to see.
I guess the question is: who budges when the protocol needs to change, and under what circumstances does someone feel the need to change ATProto?
If BlueSky decides to limit access to their API unless you register as a certified ATProto developer (vis-a-vis the current Android v Google showdown), would that harm BlackSky?
Likewise, if BlackSky keeps growing and decide they need something new, are they free to implement it or do they have to wait on BlueSky to catch up?
This is a cool project and I'm glad it was able to find purchase. I think the key to making the protocol Actually Good (read: actually open) to make things like this so pervasive or so undeniable that it waters down BlueSky's unique market position. Of course, ActivityPub interoperability would be cool too, but I understand that the Black community's experience on Masto has been pretty bad, so that may not come to fruition until the community here changes.
*something something that-xkcd-comic-about-n+1-competing-protocols* but, I mean, if BlueSky's going to publish the damn thing for free someone oughtta use it before they decide to lock it down.
-
@heliomass strange take, bsky PBC has done basically everything they needed so far to make atproto "bsky PBC-proof". What makes you think otherwise?
@res260 A lack of alternative instances was what made me think this, but then someone just replied to point out that there is in fact at least one alternative, so it seems I stand corrected on that point.
-
@hermzz @heliomass I've heard of this before but never really took a look at it.
Its seems pretty cool! Fairly independent, and looks like it is based on a slightly different stack, which is nice to see.
I guess the question is: who budges when the protocol needs to change, and under what circumstances does someone feel the need to change ATProto?
If BlueSky decides to limit access to their API unless you register as a certified ATProto developer (vis-a-vis the current Android v Google showdown), would that harm BlackSky?
Likewise, if BlackSky keeps growing and decide they need something new, are they free to implement it or do they have to wait on BlueSky to catch up?
This is a cool project and I'm glad it was able to find purchase. I think the key to making the protocol Actually Good (read: actually open) to make things like this so pervasive or so undeniable that it waters down BlueSky's unique market position. Of course, ActivityPub interoperability would be cool too, but I understand that the Black community's experience on Masto has been pretty bad, so that may not come to fruition until the community here changes.
*something something that-xkcd-comic-about-n+1-competing-protocols* but, I mean, if BlueSky's going to publish the damn thing for free someone oughtta use it before they decide to lock it down.
-
I feel like we’re supposed to believe Bluesky is going to become some open standard utopia like the Fediverse, but I don’t think it’s anywhere close, nor is it ever going to be.
I tried to educate myself a little better on the differences between Mastodon and Bluesky. I’m still sceptical that on Bluesky you can ever have something as decentralised as we have over here. Maybe I’m not understanding things fully, but it seems you still need Bluesky’s relay to make things work… at least for now.
Bluesky's Decentralized Architecture Compared to Mastodon and Twitter/X
Check the factors that might make Bluesky significantly different from its competitors.
SoftwareMill (softwaremill.com)
-
@res260 A lack of alternative instances was what made me think this, but then someone just replied to point out that there is in fact at least one alternative, so it seems I stand corrected on that point.
@heliomass There are some of them for the bsky lexicons (the microblogging on atproto) like blacksky.community, deer.social, surf.social (also AP-compatible) and gander.social (closed beta for now).
But atproto was never designed to be decentralized the way that mastodon/activitypub is. The main decentralization point is at the PDS level, where the "instance" (like bsky.social) doesn’t own said data and if they do things you don’t like, then you start using something else without that implying a migration (just start using blacksky.community). If your PDS is at the same place as your instance (as for most people), then that implies a migration (but it won’t change your identity the way that it does for mastodon).
On the governance front, a working group at the IETF was created to standardize the core parts of atproto: https://atproto.com/blog/kicking-off-the-atp-working-group
-
@heliomass There are some of them for the bsky lexicons (the microblogging on atproto) like blacksky.community, deer.social, surf.social (also AP-compatible) and gander.social (closed beta for now).
But atproto was never designed to be decentralized the way that mastodon/activitypub is. The main decentralization point is at the PDS level, where the "instance" (like bsky.social) doesn’t own said data and if they do things you don’t like, then you start using something else without that implying a migration (just start using blacksky.community). If your PDS is at the same place as your instance (as for most people), then that implies a migration (but it won’t change your identity the way that it does for mastodon).
On the governance front, a working group at the IETF was created to standardize the core parts of atproto: https://atproto.com/blog/kicking-off-the-atp-working-group
@res260 Thanks, I’ve added that link to my reading backlog. Perhaps it’s fair to say the model for the AT Protocol requires a bit more effort to understand (at a high level) than ActivityPub?
-
@res260 Thanks, I’ve added that link to my reading backlog. Perhaps it’s fair to say the model for the AT Protocol requires a bit more effort to understand (at a high level) than ActivityPub?
@heliomass the part "your data can be owned by you, a third party or the service you use and that allow any other service to use this data without asking the service you use" is indeed weird at first. But I wouldn't say it's any more complicated than activitypub, which needs to explain "instances" to people. You say you're on mastodon but youre really on cosocial which uses mastodon, but you download a mastodon app to use cosocial.ca. It's not easy to explain to non-techy people either.
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
