- cross-posted to:
- fediverse@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- fediverse@lemmy.ml
You must log in or # to comment.
From what I saw, fedi people were mostly freaking the fuck out while most of the Bluesky users were just making fun of the whole ordeal.
I want to join a federated network!
*federation happens*
No, not like that
We believe in open protocols and hate walled gardens!
Except our walled garden!
I feel like the people who got scared of Bluesky joining the AP fediverse don’t even actually want a fediverse. They want a bog-standard, non-federating bulletin board instead.
We want an open Federation!
But no Ferengi allowed.
But he’s sympathetic to the fear that some Mastodon users have about their posts showing up in places they didn’t anticipate.
If they’re afraid of that, they joined the Fedi with a fundamental misunderstanding of how its supposed to work.
Chalk up another tally in the “Mastodon is confusing” column.
If they’re afraid of that, they joined the Fedi with a fundamental misunderstanding of how its supposed to work.
Yeah I was about to say, sure this isn’t ActivityPub, but the specific implementation of the federation should be an impolementation detail the user should never care about. You joined a federated system. Your content gets federated. Period. Whether said federation happens through ActivityPub, AT, some bridge system or the Binford Content Disperser 5000XL+, that’s really not the point of any discussions so long as the content does get federated.
The same exact people will whine about how Bluesky should have been using ActivityPub in one second, and bitch about how they don’t want their content bridged over there in the next. It’s almost as if they haven’t thought this through.
Of course anyone is free to join an instance that blocks the bridge - that’s part of the beauty of the whole system.
It’s not confusing. People just have different ideas about what the experience should be
It’s not confusing.
The quotes were my indication that I don’t personally find it confusing, but a lot of people obviously do or it wouldn’t have that perception.
People just have different ideas about what the experience should be
If they have different ideas, it’s because they are confused about how it works. There’s only 1 way it’s ever going to work. There’s no debate to be had. No one gets to control the Fediverse, and no one needs permission to join it. That is inherent in it’s fundamental design.
No they’re not confused. I’ve seen a lot of these discussions on Mastodon. They don’t misunderstand the tech, they’re actively trying to curate a community.
Exactly. There’s a core disagreement about whether making a public post means consenting to it being used for all purposes without consent (the multiple battles about consent-based search), but relatively few people are confused about whether bad actors will use it without consent.
There’s a core disagreement about whether making a public post means consenting to it being used for all purposes without consent
Wouldn’t this better be served by implementing per-post licensing, rather than mixing federation into it? After all, most of the real issue is people not accepting the fact that, regardless of federation, bad actors can do bad things with their content. Federation is not gonna change that, but at least licensing posts would allow you a legal avenue to pursue, which currently doesn’t seem to exist.
This post licensed under CC BY-NC-SA.
But public posts federating across the network isn’t an “experience”. It’s the basic functionality of the network.
joins decentralized social network
complains about posts being decentralized and shared around the network
I joined a network run by nerdy trans girls not Jack fucking Dorsey
my timeline on bsky is like entirely trans girls and it’s great :3
there are understandable concerns: most fediverse server software will respect “delete” requests of one form or another. if i signed up expecting that servers would at least try to delete content, and then i found out my content was being scraped and cached somewhere else that has no intent of respecting the delete requests, that would irk me. i also just dislike reposter bots in general, since it commonly seems like it’s spam, with no interaction from the original poster anyway.
Bro some instances block other instances because those other instances don’t block all the instances the first instance is blocking
I think not wanting to federate/bridge with Bluesky is a very bad idea. The entire idea is that we should get a Fediverse that is as connected as possible, not split up into many tiny subsets of users.
I for one, welcome the presence of bluesky.
Nostr vs Mastodon on Privacy & Autonomy:
- Relay/instance admins can choose which content goes through their relay on either platform
- On nostr, your DMs are encrypted. In Mastodon, the admin of the sender and receiver can read them, as can anybody else who breaks into their server
- On nostr, a relay admin can control what goes through their relay, but they can’t stop you from following/DMing/being followed by whoever you want since you are typically connected to multiple relays at once. As long as one relay allows it, signal flows. Nostr provides the best of both worlds: moderated “public squares” according to your moderation preferences, autonomy to follow/dm/be followed by anybody you want (assuming that individual user hasn’t blocked you).
- On mastodon, your identity is tied to your instance. If your instance goes down, you lose your follow/followee list, DMs, etc. On Nostr, it’s not, so this doesn’t happen. Mastodon provides some functionality to migrate identity between instances but it’s clunky and generally requires to have some form of advanced notice.
- Both have all the same functions as twitter: tweet, reply, re-tweet, DM, like, etc.
Why I think nostr will win https://lemmy.ml/post/11570081
Well the part of cryptobros is a tradeoff for me.
And if we talk about on the crypto currency, i prefer the libre currency which is closer from libre/free software and very different from bitcoin.
On Lemmy, users are encouraged to use Matrix. A crypted chat.
Literally backed by Jack Dorsey and crypto bullshit. Fuck off.
Have they by now come up with a way to moderate things?
Read the first bullet point:
- Relay/instance admins can choose which content goes through their relay on either platform
Ok, but can they also delete it once its through? Either all incoming messages are checked beforehand and are filtered by the admin, which is even worse of the bad censorship in the Fediverse nostr fans keep crying about, or its passed through and the user has to deal with toxic content. I’m not sure how that should work. The moderation has to happen somewhere, it sounds like nostr is heaving that onto the user.
Usually, if people say “its the best from both worlds” actually means “there is a tradeoff, but I like this adjustment of the tradeoff more”. If you want less “censorship”, which is ok, you use nostr, but have to live with a worse moderation situation.
A relay admin controls what goes through their relay. A user controls who they follow and who follows them. If you want, you can just auto-ignore all DMs directed to you by people who aren’t in your follow list. Also remember that your DMs have to come through a relay, presumably you are connected to relays you trust the moderation policy of, so toxic users can’t use those relays to DM you.
Then if its filtered - why is it better against cencorship?
Because you can choose which relays to connect to and you typically connect to multiple relays. This is all seamless. On Mastodon/fedi, an instance controls your entire view of the fediverse unless you make a separate account elsewhere and check it separately. You can’t follow or be followed by users or instances they block even if you want to. They also control your identity, since it’s tied to a relay/instance. If your relay shuts down or your account gets banned, you have to make a new account elsewhere, re-follow everybody, get everybody to re-follow you, etc. It’s a mess.
On nostr, instance/relay admins only control that goes through their specific relay. Relay admins can, of course, share common blocklists if they want for anti-spam or anti-abuse purposes. If you want to follow somebody blocked by a relay, you are connected to other relays and the signal can flow through there. You don’t need to check multiple relays separately. If your relay closes, you don’t lose your account/identity.
Ok, now I get it. It’s an interesting concept. However, I think usability is a trade-off here and that means limited scalability. The average user wants to join a server and that’s it. I continue to place my bet on the federated concept ;)
The concept is nice, problem is there are too many cryptobros.
pretty sure those are the noisy minority. afterall more content drives more people. artificial walls wont benefit anyone…
I am from Mastodon / ActivityPub bubble. Can someone explain me the benefits of Bluesky / AT protocol?
From their website:
Account portability is the major reason why we chose to build a separate protocol. We consider portability to be crucial because it protects users from sudden bans, server shutdowns, and policy disagreements. Our solution for portability requires both signed data repositories and DIDs, neither of which are easy to retrofit into ActivityPub. The migration tools for ActivityPub are comparatively limited; they require the original server to provide a redirect and cannot migrate the user’s previous data.
Other smaller differences include: a different viewpoint about how schemas should be handled, a preference for domain usernames over AP’s double-@ email usernames, and the goal of having large scale search and discovery (rather than the hashtag style of discovery that ActivityPub favors).
https://atproto.com/guides/faq#why-not-use-activitypub
Sounds fair to me, although I am also not using either Mastodon or Bluesky.
Yes these are certainly words
ELI5:
In the Fediverse your account and identity is linked to a domain (e.g. you are @someone@domain.com), and you can’t move that account somewhere else. You can’t even change the domain of a server, because all the accounts on that server would be known by a different domain and be treated as separate new identifies. In Bluesky your identity is basically a random number, it’s shown in the URL of a profile page for example. You can link that to a domain temporarily and get a nice user handle, but you can always move to another domain later. That means you can migrate between servers and keep all your friends and followers, something that’s currently not possible in the Fediverse.
The thing about schemas is a technical detail, not really any consequences for users. Then there is a different format for user handles, so the Bluesky people don’t like the double @ signs for those.
The last thing is about how you don’t just pick one server/instance in Bluesky, instead you can pick different servers for different things. One server hosts your account, but a few others can fill and sort your news feed, block spam for you or let you search through content. It’s supposed to create an open ecosystem for these services, and allow you to keep your account on a server that offers none of these by itself, e.g. a small home server. Of course there is nothing like that in the Fediverse, you pick a service and a server, and that’s it.
I have to say Bluesky looks extremely interesting from a technical perspective, there’s just the fact that it’s completely dominated by the official server right now. People can create their own servers though, so we’ll have to see how it evolves.
I think I would be very interested in this version of doing things. Would it be feasible to build a link aggregator on that protocol? I don’t like the microblogging UX.
Yes, that’s basically what those schemas are about. You can create different schemas for different kinds of posts and content structures, so something like Lemmy should be possible. The Fediverse has something similar as well, but the way you introduce new schemas is different between the two as far as I understand it. In the former you’ll have to adapt some features of the underlying ActivityPub protocol to your new usecase, or work with others towards extending the protocol. The later allows you to just declare and describe your new structure in a machine-readable way, and others can then choose to support it. So Bluesky is more flexible and open in that regard, but could also end up more fragmented.
you can’t move that account somewhere else.
That means you can migrate between servers and keep all your friends and followers, something that’s currently not possible in the Fediverse.
It absolutely is possible to move accounts between instances on the fediverse. I’ve done it multiple times.
It does have some quirks tho. Posts aren’t migrated to your new account. (Some fedi software lets you migrate posts, but from what I hear it’s kinda jank).
It’s not seamless, but the option is there, and you won’t lose any friends or followers (unless they’re defederated or something)
Bluesky accounts seem like they’ll be more portable than fediverse accounts but I don’t know much about it
You’re not really moving your account - you’re just migrating your followers over to the new one. If people try to reach you at the old handle they won’t get through, like a dead email address.
That said, I don’t really think this is such a big problem. The reason the AT protocol was invented is because they wanted to do their own thing rather than adhering to standards.
rn not much. In the future there’ll be properly portable accounts using cryptographic keys and once federation kicks in lighter servers making it probably more distributed.
I don’t like bluesky because I don’t like it’s owner. I don’t like the owner because he thinks everyone is dumb and forgot the fact that nobody pointed a gun on his face to sell Twitter to some Arab dictators.
Jack Dorsey doesn’t “own” Blusky, he just gave them grant money in the beginning to kick things off, and is one of the board members.
“Prior to the seed round, Bluesky’s website described the company as a Public Benefit LLC owned by CEO Jay Graber and other Bluesky employees. Post-seed round, the company describes itself as a public-benefit C Corp.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluesky_(social_network)#Company_history
This is what so called open ai does. It isn’t open even in the sense of open group Unix. I just feel pity for American tax payers as elections are near. Both of these people have significant say in US/World politics.
Ah, he doesn’t own it, he just decides what it does.
he literally has no leadership stake in it… but considering it’s open source, literally anyone can make a pull request if they want to, even dorsey
literally
Next.
Dismissing an entire comment over the usage of a single word is closed minded. Language evolves over time, get used to it.
I don’t see how that’s accurate if it’s jointly owned by its employees.
I don’t understand the frustration.
It’s legal to scrape websites and this is doing it in a way that activity pub is designed to support. You can’t be mad another instance is reading your data, that’s what the fediverse is.
I think people will end up finding bridgy annoying frankly, but it seems like a useful tool that takes federated content and lets websites build things that used to be only available by adding Facebook pixel and Twitter links to your site.
The microblog side of the fediverse is really hostile to scraping or indexing of any kind. On the one hand, I get the idea of safe spaces and not wanting your data to be public, but then why are you on an instance that federates openly?
It seems to me that anything that’s being federated out by ActivityPub is public by nature. If you don’t want it to be public, you should use an allowlist, or just don’t post publicly.
I guess I just assume that everything I’m posting is being scraped and archived forever, because there’s no way to ensure it’s not. It’s ironic that the fediverse is so hostile to this fundamental fact of the internet when ActivityPub is basically designed to just hand out information to whoever asks. It seems like there’s a conflict between the protocol and the culture.
Going out on a limb, but the for profit corporation being able to suck up your posts is probably what has many upset. I personally would block such a service as I don’t see these for-profit corporations as part of the fediverse, but as leeches out to Extend, Embrace, Extinguish.
but open data is an objectively good thing. This means anyone can suck up the data and build something instead of just Meta and X and people who pay millions of dollars to access that. Let everyone suck!
Open yes, but Bluesky is not open, they are after free content to make the corporate investors a return at all costs. If a non-profit wants to use my server to add content to their platform, I have no issue with that. But a for-profit can pay me for content if they want it, I don’t work for them or use their platform.
Open data as in publicly accessible without a login gate. Bluesky though does have this stupid login wall option but it can be bypassed very easily so it’s still open.
I do agree with you about how Bluesky is still a for-profit American corporation and nothing free or selfless ever came from one so it shouldn’t be trusted implicitly.
profit corporation being able to suck up your posts
anyone can spin up a server and federate, anyone can suck up your data, corporations, governments or unknowns
I can absolutely understand that sentiment, but that’s not quite how the bridge works.
I’ve chosen to put my content on mastodon, and my friend prefers bluesky. The bridge just shares content across so now we can interact.
I think that’s better than mastodon and bluesky each cutting off their bosses to spite their own faces. Fragmenting the between is why X didn’t die a much deserved death after Elon Musk bought it.
Tbh X is not the real enemy here imo. The bigger danger is losing the open protocol battle to something proprietary and both Meta and Bluesky are very shady with their intentions.
Tbh X is not the real enemy here imo.
Eh, X and Musk are always the enemy. I get what you’re saying, but ultimately it’s important to keep in mind that the underlying impetus is still Musk being a far-right bigot that has bought X to explicitly make it a haven for fascists, bigots and haters.
I kind of agree, Meta’s take of pulling content but no contributing back is clearly bad for the platform, but I don’t see Bluesky as being shady, though I haven’t followed what they do.
I thought the whole point of federation was the open standard allows anyone to be on the same standing as the larger corporations, so from that perspective I think it only works if you also allow large companies to participate.
Bluesky is a for-profit company. There’s zero precedence of a for-profit developing an open protocol AFAIK. I’d love to be proven wrong but I’m not optimistic to say the least.
This argument makes no sense. Everything you post is already public.
The same argument could be used for copyright itself, and why we have non-commercial licenses for things. Just because you are giving something away as free (as in beer), doesn’t mean that some for-profit should be able to just use it to drive up their user base and make the corp more money. I think content creators, or at the very least in the fediverse - server owners, should be able to limit what corporations can suck up to further corporate profits at the expense of the fediverse.
If you want to run a server and donate your resources to make a for-profit corp money, that is your right, but to tell everyone that they should have no control of their content is unacceptable to me.
You can’t stop them from sucking up your data as long as your posts are public.
Even if it was made illegal, how would you even know they’re doing it? It’s not like these companies are afraid of breaking the law, they’ll just get a small fine if they get caught anyway.
Mainstream social media sites and apps collect an extreme amount of data for the companies running them. For this reason, you are already far better off using alternative like Lemmy or Mastodon. But don’t be delusional, you can’t expect privacy when you make public posts.
I don’t disagree that it would be a good thing if you could limit what these corps can suck up, it just doesn’t really seem possible.
I don’t think the argument is even about privacy, but giving away someone else’s (or in this case potentially a whole network of people’s content), and admins resources in order to drive some corporate profits they aren’t even getting a share of. If someone needs to chat with someone on Bluesky that bad then they should just make an account, not undermine a whole network so they can be lazy.
Following that logic, if someone on Lemmy needs to chat with someone on Mastodon that bad they should just make an account.
Calling someone lazy for building and running a service which bridges between different protocols is both dumb and rude.
Mastodon is part of the fediverse though, and is open and a nonprofit. Bluesky is neither of those things, and that is why it’s different.
And giving the resources from a free and open network to a for-profit corporation is both dumb and rude IMHO.
for profit corporation being able to suck up your posts is probably what has many upset
They can already do that without a bridge. And it doesn’t “suck up your posts”. It works just like any other instance. They have to search for you and follow you. Then they receive posts going forward, but they won’t get historical posts.
I personally would block such a service
Good! You can do that and that is a perfectly reasonable solution. That’s part of what has ppl upset on the other side of this argument. All of this arguing and vitriol is happening over a service that you can block like any other fediverse actor.
What has people upset is that the “service” is opt-out instead of opt-in, and one someone else is making for server admins without warning. If this person wanted to run a server and give their own content to the corporate overlords that is their choice, but making something to give others content away without their consent doesn’t sit well with a lot of people.
The other thing, that I see even more people upset about, is that the bridge requires you to Opt-Out, rather than Opt-In for being included.
It’s totally fine if you want to be included, especially if you have friends on BlueSky. But, it’s just a shitty practice that is all too prevalent in new tech. AI companies are doing the same thing - if you’re an artist, you’re supposed to magically know all of these new, obscure AI startups and somehow find how to opt-out of being included in their training data set. It’s ridiculous.
Same concept here, I would have had no idea this was a thing, if not for people speaking up about it. Some people make a conscious choice to join Fediverse communities because they want nothing to do with big tech and want more control of their data and privacy and who has access to it. Why is such a big deal to respect that?
I think there’s a huge difference in scraping your content to churn out a for-profit “AI” and federating your public posts on a federated network.
Ok, then please tell me, in terms of giving one’s consent, exactly how the two are different?
Because I fail to see how opting out in either case is any way a different process than the other.
The developers are putting the onus on the end user that is affected, and relying on them having knowledge that their product exists. Then it is the users’s responsibility to figure out the process to remove themselves from the user group and trusting the developer/admins to actually take any action to do so.
This is the only argument I am trying to make - opt out is bad. Please stop using it when developing technologies that affect user’s data and/or privacy.
in terms of giving one’s consent, exactly how the two are different?
Because in the second case, the user is choosing to post on a network where any other server can request their posts. A bridge is just an instance that understands more than one protocol. There’s no difference in it and any other server requesting your posts. That’s how the network works.
Thank you for confirming my point, because you are still just referring differences in the technology itself. I asked how opting out is different in either case, and the fact is they are not.
The fact that the Bridgy developer is making it a possibility is what matters, and that they consciously chose to make it opt-out. It’s apparent that they already spent time and effort into implementing a system that allows you to add a hashtag to your profile to signal that you want to opt out. Why not just make it the other way around, and make it for opting in? Surely all the people who would want to be able to bridge wouldn’t mind that? It doesn’t matter if you think this is something innocuous or insignificant, because to others, it isn’t. And if you think that’s because of a misunderstanding in the user with the technology, then the developer needs to do better in explaining that and gaining users trust. You don’t build trust in users by using practices like opt-out, which is again, the only argument I am trying to make.
I said the two things are different, you said how does that make asking for consent for the two things different, and my response was that for one of them it already works that way without your consent. That is a clear difference. Yes, I’m talking about the technology to explain the difference, because it’s a concrete fact. Your argument that a bridge should be opt-in requires an abstract boundary that some instances are are allowed to federate on an opt-out basis and others are not.
You don’t build trust in users by using practices like opt-out, which is again, the only argument I am trying to make.
The instance you’re on uses opt-out practices. You didn’t consent to your post federating to kbin.social and yet here we are. If you don’t trust the bridge, fine, block it. Every tool on the fediverse that you already use to deal with its inherently opt-out nature is available for you to use with this bridge.
Ok, let me explain my POV from a different perspective:
By signing up for an account, whether it be on a Lemmy or Mastodon or any other ActivityPub implementation, I have consented to functionality in which my posts are distributed to other instances within the Fediverse. It’s widely advertised and clearly explained that is how things function. I can readily find which implementations are part of the fediverse. And yes, within that system, I can use blocking/unblocking of users, communities, and instances, as a form of moderation that I can manage. But as a common user, I don’t have the option of easily block all instances that use a common ActivityPub implementation, which is why bridges require special consideration. I can’t, in a user friendly way, specify that I don’t want to ever be connected in any way to a bridge instance or any of its incarnations and limit my consent to ActivityPub implementations of my choosing, because that’s something not possible to do do with any other type of instance either. Bridge instances are not comparable to other implementations like Lemmy or KBin, et al, solely because their function is to translate data to other protocols and move that data to other decentralized networks outside and separate from the fediverse, which operate under different rules and policies. As such, they should not be treated like other instances when federating. Or maybe, they shouldn’t even be an instance at all. Making it an instance that can federate may be the easiest way to implement the bridge functionality across multiple ActivityPub implementations, but in doing so, makes it overly obscure to end users.
Without historical knowledge, or going all the way to the ActivityPub docs is there any mention of bridges or even what they do or what they bridge to/from, unless you read through their documentation as well. So, to the common user, we have no knowledge that being able to directly communicate with platforms like BlueSky or Nostr is possible, or is being actively developed, and foreknowledge of this would likely inform some user’s choice in joining the fediverse. Unless this functionality is made common knowledge to the user when they sign up for an instance, or when an instance decides to federate with a bridge, then it should be opt-in, because it’s enabling functionality that users currently are unaware of and may not want. Common users are not notified when their instance federates with other instances, so unless they actively check, they have no idea of changes to the federation of their instance. Right now, there is a very concrete boundary, in that without a bridge, it’s not possible to directly interact with non-federated, separate platforms like BlueSky or Nostr.
This is why people are having an adverse reaction to this whole ordeal, specifically people whom are actively avoiding said platforms. And as I said in my previous post, because the Bridgy developer consciously chose to enact an opt-out policy, specific to their project and outside the norms of other instances, it has been perceived that this is something different that they are trying to force on to people without their consent and behind their backs.
Just because opt-out is the norm for other use cases, doesn’t mean it should be used for all new functionality that is introduced to the fediverse. Besides, there are numerous features across ActivityPub implementations that are opt-in. And telling users that are concerned, just block it if you don’t want it, is frankly a lazy solution, that pushes blame and does nothing to alleviate user concerns or gain trust. Such attitudes drive people away from the fediverse, rather than attract.
I have done my due diligence and read a whole lot of documentation over the past couple of days to better understand ActivityPub and protocol bridges. So my comments are not meant to be taken as I am trying to come off as an expert, because I am far from it. I am just trying to get people to see the other side of the story and at least consider where people are coming from and why exactly they are arguing for opt-in, even if the other side feels like it’s an unfounded overreaction.
The bridge is nothing more than another Activitypub instance. You can block it in the same ways that you can block existing Mastodon or Lemmy instances. If users want to opt in to federate with it, they should also have to opt in manually to federate with every single Lemmy instance.
Saying that the bridge is nothing more than another ActivityPub instance is very disingenuous.
While it may be built upon the ActivityPub protocol, but its main purpose is to act as a bridge to non-federated platforms, which is unique to that instance. When signing up for a fediverse instance, it should be known to the user that their data will be shared within the fediverse network. But, no permission is given to share on any platforms outside the fediverse network, using non-ActivityPub protocols.
So, no, opt-in should not be necessary for all instances, but in the case of the bridge, it is, because it’s enabling a feature that users haven’t explicitly agreed too and isn’t a core part of the ActivityPub protocol. And since the bridge is being made open-source, should users also be expected to track down any other instances that pick up and use it and manually block and opt-out of those?
This asks zero sense as there’s n disclosure on hardly any instance. Also, there’s several non ActivityPub protocols and bridges that have long since been used and peoples content shared
It’s not even a fight. Bluesky lost a long long time ago when they launched an incompatible protocol with less features and worse UX and have done absolutely nothing to address this other than add curated feeds which barely work in the first place. Bluesky is so far behind that calling it a fight is just silly.
“Lost”. its still growing, gaining more features, and more users. Its a growing protocol thats in its infancy while activitypub is 6+ years old. Theres such a weird elitism coming from mastodon/activitypub people like can we chill and improve activitypub instead of constantly trying to shit on the atProtocol?
Hmm atprotocol has 1 server and 1 product. How is it competing with other decentralized protocols by not having anything to show? All I’m saying that it’s not a real competition yet especially since Bluesky is literally just the worst parts of Twitter without anything done to address the same toxic shit that came out of the original.
Its barely been around. How many services did activitypub have the first year? Atprotocol already has tools twitter didnt have to combat the bad shit. The block tool is way more powerful and theres block lists, theres custom feeds instead of toxic for you page that pushes ads and inflammatory posts.
You just can’t compare these two directly - ActivityPub which is a W3C backed non-profit free protocol and software collection to Bluesky which is a single for profit american product with some open source components that could be decentralized. But even if you do, it’s still underperforming despite being found directly to leech of users of an existing failing product (it’s even the same founder lol).
Again, you can like Bluesky and atprotocol but to say it’s on even remotely equal footing either in ideological or real sense to be “fighting activititypub” is just laughable any way you look at it.
deleted by creator
an incompatible protocol with less features and worse UX
And yet, they have the one thing that matters: the users.
Are these users in the room with us? Because having 5m users for a centralized social network is laughable.
Bluesky so far had zero impact on pop culture especially outside of the US. It’s just trolling, bullying and though vomit that got exported from Twitter.
Hi, yes, I’m here. The user. Of both, in fact.
Both Bluesky and Mastodon have their quirks and their different cultures. The feature sets of their protocols may also be different, but they sure aren’t relevant to the experience at all, because federation is not a user-facing feature for the vast majority of the social media experience.
Stop cheerleading for social networks. Social networks are not your friends, including Mastodon or the rest of the “fediverse”.
I can be friends with a social network if I know my admin and I’m in a small instance. That’s the power of federation.
Social networks are absolutely our friends.
Like it or not but it’s a part of our society that is here to stay. To imagine a world where we suddenly abandon social networks is just delusional.
Also this might be an unpopular opinion but social networks are net good for the society despite the problems they’ve cause they’ve helped us solve many more.
Bluesky just had to go and make their own federation protocol when ActivityPub was standardized years ago for federation.
i mean they literally used at proto because it did things that activitypub didn’t do and refused to do.
If this dev won’t do it, another will in a proprietary fashion. These people have too much time on their hands.
People care about Bluesky? Like at all? Interesting.
