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.
joins decentralized social network
complains about posts being decentralized and shared around the network
Bro some instances block other instances because those other instances don't block all the instances the first instance is blocking
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I'm sure there are, a lot of the internet developed that way.
TBH I don't know much about Bluesky, except that it's a Twitter one with it's own federation protocol, and I don't get what the value of any project adopting their protocol over activity pub is.
Plenty of for-profit companies use open protocols and don't harm them in the slightest.
Almost any website you visit, for example.
If we're allowed to - and happily do - copy over content from for-profit websites with bots, it feels a bit weird to then get angry about that happening in reverse, no?
Plus, oh no, interoperability. We get to just interact with people instead of everyone sitting in their respective walled gardens.
If we’re allowed to - and happily do - copy over content from for-profit websites with bots, it feels a bit weird to then get angry about that happening in reverse, no?
Not at all. It's a matter of asynchronous power play.
We can do the former as a fight against power, but we have to fight for it. When they do it to us, it's "just business" and we have no defense.
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
Yes, but consuming data and using someone else's data for profit are 2 different things. Don't believe me, start reposting a large news websites data verbatim with AdSense on it and see how quickly the cease and desist comes.
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 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.
I think it's about usage rights. People are fine with their post being on their chosen end of the fediverse forever but don't want corporations and news sites to generate a profit by using the posts. That is independent of federation, federation just makes it easier.
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?
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
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.
Thank you for the detailed explanation. It matches what I've heard from others while having this same debate. Now allow me to explain my side.
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
This is the part I think is wrong and the cause of all of this. You can not find which implementations are part of the fediverse. No tracker that you can use has an up-to-date and accurate listing of implementations. New ones come online every day as some random developer builds something new. The fediverse doesn't have clear boundaries and I think the advertising that you mentioned does a disservice by implying it does. The fediverse is similar to the web; they're both based on open protocols and can be guided but not controlled, because anybody can build something on those protocols.
One response to this fuzziness has been to demand most features be opt-in. The reason I don't think this is tenable is because you have to have a hard boundary to determine what should be opt-in and what is ok to be opt-out. Your heuristic was native ActivityPub implementation. I don't think this scales (I feel like you're going to say this is a technological argument and therefore invalid, but it's also a social argument. Ppl don't want to use something that they have to constantly maintain. Constantly adding new servers/users to an allowlist is a chore that would drive ppl away. See google+ circles). It doesn't scale because like I said above new implementations pop up every day and these implementations are starting to branch away from the static archetypes we're used to (Twitter-like, Facebook-like, Reddit-like, etc). And some of them are existing projects that add AP support.
For instance, Hubzilla/Friendica has been bridging AP content for years. Do all of those instances require opt-in because they use a different protocol in addition to AP? There have also been bridges that translate RSS feeds to AP actor for years. Did the owners of those RSS feeds opt-in and should they have been required to?
What I'm trying to say is I think you're right that you can never keep up with the boundaries of the fediverse and where your posts end up. And I don't think there's an easy delineation for what should be opt-out vs opt-in. So instead we should be demanding that implementations add controls to our posts. Thinks like ACLs and OCAPs would allow you to control who can see your posts and interact with them and not care about new bridges/instances/whatever. Which is why I think the argument over opt-out vs opt-in is a distraction that will only keep the fediverse in this quasi-privacy space where you're dependent on yelling down any actor who is doing something with yours posts you don't like.
The situation is not truly comparable, tbh.
Artists very much retain legal rights to the art they create. Hence the current lawsuits against various AI companies. Meanwhile it depends on jurisdiction whether a comment/thought you write on a public-facing website can be considered your legal production for a civil lawsuit. It'd be trivial if it were a closed site with a very selective admission process with some easily evaluated barrier (say, only people who study at university XYZ are allowing on the otherwise private forum of that university), but public-facing it's more ambiguous.
You can still try to sue someone who taking that content, but it's not as clearcut that someone violates your rights as with artists and their art. Meaning that there's less basis for someone wanting this to always have to be explicitly opt-in and get explicit permission. At least right now. This might very well all change as a result of AI lawsuits.
Tbh, I wasn’t talking about the legalities of AI or copyright law. I was using that as an example of why opt-out is a shitty business practice that makes people frustrated and upset. Because people commenting on this post and defending the bridge don’t seem to understand that.
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.
Remember even large corporations standardising on truly open protocols can be reversed after whatever the situation leading up to it is resolved.
I just remember Jabber/XMPP federation which included Google. Once Google decided they got big enough, they abandoned it. Of course nothing happened to the protocol itself, it is well and alive both on Fortune 500 and selected as official choice for presence protocol on internet2.edu
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.
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 ;)
It's just as scalable as fedi, I'd say it's even more scalable since relays don't need to communicate with each other, which reduces the cost to run a relay. The average user experience is basically identical. They download an app, it connects to a set of default relays (or they can choose some manually if they want), they tweet.
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.
nostr sounds interesting, any good android clients for nostr?
I recommend Amethyst which has all of the core features and very natural UX (similar to mastodon apps like Megalodon)
Literally backed by Jack Dorsey and crypto bullshit. Fuck off.
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...
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.
Well, 1 effective server. I would sure hope it actually runs on more than 1 for redundancy/latency reasons.
The server isnt effective by itself. Marketing and money to pay developers is. In comparison to mastodons completely open source approach, the proprietary bluesky software is a step back to the old ways. Its a public benefit llc which I can appreciate but it feels like someone wanted to show people that proprietary is always better. I‘m not a fan.
Bluesky lost? I'm all for corporate social media losing, but I think Bluesky has a bigger chance than Mastodon to become as big as Twitter at its peak, because of the money behind it. At least for the short/medium term. Long term, when Bluesky inevitably also falls due to enshittification or what not, Mastodon might win, unless it has splintered into a bunch of defederated clusters of drama at that point.
Personally I'll never join another corporate social media platform ever again. But I'm in a miniscule minority.
I‘m in this minuscule minority with you. Fuck corpos.
There are many of us!
amen!
Yeah I was about to say, I could see an argument for Mastodon having lost (it's momentum, which is the only thing it truly has going for it), but Bluesky? ~every podcaster I follow now advertises they're on bluesky instead of twitter, and most youtubers link to their bluesky, too. At least in the US it seems to have gotten decently popular tbh.
OTOH, we have the BBC and Flipboard being all-in on Mastodon, granted. Which is going to be fun when people get around to defederating them considering how it went for Threads.
How would Bluesky be falling to enshittification if it can be federated just like Mastodon?
Everyone always says Mastodon can't be ruined this way because you can always move to another Mastodon instance. Wouldn't that also be the case for Bluesky, once federation kicks off?
There's a for profit corporation behind it and they have investors. They'll find a way when they decide they need ROI and increase profits. They still haven't even disclosed how they'll monetize the platform afaik so they're just living off of investor capital thus far. First step of enshittification is when they monetize the platform. How it works when federated depends on how it's designed (I have no idea), but what happens to the network if Bluesky Social PBC goes under?
The issue, at least for me, is proprietary software. The protocol is open and the company seems to be non profit, both big plusses, but there is no reason whatsoever to make the software proprietary imo. Federation (depending with whom) is only good if one can use non proprietary software, otherwise they control you again.
But the AT Protocol is open, isn't it? Anyone can go ahead and create non proprietary software that lives on this protocol.
I understand your concerns regarding Bluesky specifically being proprietary, but as soon as someone creates an open source atproto server, you will be able to interact with Bluesky users without using proprietary software. It will require Bluesky to federate with instances using such software of course.
I agree that this would be a solution. Bluesky adding a bridge for ap would be 100.000 times easier though.
Why would anyone start anew? We have similar platforms already. One big downside is that someone buying into at protocol would need to start anew and bluesky is already so big that any instance needs to submit to their rule or wither.
Edit: any new instance would have to submit to their rule.
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".
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.
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.
When Twitter was bought by Musk I rushed to create myself a Mastodon. My hope was that most of the interesting, thoughtful people I followed on Twitter would eventually end up on Mastodon as Musk slowly ruined the platform. I kept my Twitter up just to keep tabs on them and grab their Mastodon handles as they shared them.
In the end, around half of them created Mastodon accounts that I follow to this day. All of them are inactive now.
At the same time I noticed more and more of them creating BS accounts. I think around 80% of them ended up in it. They're still quite active in BS to this day.
I open Mastodon and BS once daily. Former rarely has new posts, latter always has.
I really wanted all of them on Mastodon. I don't trust a corpo like BS. But the particular type of crowd I followed on Twitter (progressive essayists/humanities people, game journalists, artists, non-dev hobbyists, etc) seems to have mostly gone to BS, stayed on Twitter, gone to Cohost or back to Tumblr, or abandoned social media. I did find some interesting people active on Mastodon, mostly accesibility advocates, a couple of devs of games I loved and a few non brainrotten IT people. But the level of activity from my spheres of interest seems much higher on BS right now sadly.
I feel like its completely the opposite. Bluesky is just whining and screaming into the void while Mastodon feels like real stuff is actually happening. There are actually working feeds and a news section.
Bluesky has no hashtags or discovery mechanism other than the broken feeds that nobody knows how they work while on mastodon you can literally subscribe to hashtags like you'd subscribe to a community on lemmy. It's not even remotely close.
Mastodon only got bad rap because it started of decentralized and people are just too dumb for that apparently.
People care about Bluesky? Like at all? Interesting.
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 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."
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.
Software developer Ryan Barrett found this out the hard way when he set out to connect the AT Protocol and ActivityPub with a bridge called Bridgy Fed.
Barrett planned to make the bridge opt-out by default, meaning that public Mastodon posts could show up on Bluesky without the author knowing, and vice versa.
In what one Bluesky user called “the funniest github issue page i have ever seen,” there was a heated debate over the opt-out default, which — like any good internet argument — included unfounded legal threats and devolved into bizarre personal attacks.
As a nonprofit, Mastodon’s appeal is that, unlike Instagram or Twitter or YouTube, it’s not controlled by a big corporation that needs to make its investors happy.
The ideological issues around Bridgy Fed are likely to continue stoking tension across these federated social networks as they increase their connection points.
“I am thinking and feeling deeply that however content moderation works on either side of the bridge, it needs to be at least as good as it is for native fediverse users, and vice versa,” Barrett said.
The original article contains 1,176 words, the summary contains 182 words. Saved 85%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I'm in mastodon but I wouldn't mind trying Bluesky when there are third party servers.
I for one, welcome the presence of bluesky.
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.
Bro some instances block other instances because those other instances don't block all the instances the first instance is blocking
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm sure there are, a lot of the internet developed that way.
TBH I don't know much about Bluesky, except that it's a Twitter one with it's own federation protocol, and I don't get what the value of any project adopting their protocol over activity pub is.
Plenty of for-profit companies use open protocols and don't harm them in the slightest.
Almost any website you visit, for example.
If we're allowed to - and happily do - copy over content from for-profit websites with bots, it feels a bit weird to then get angry about that happening in reverse, no?
Plus, oh no, interoperability. We get to just interact with people instead of everyone sitting in their respective walled gardens.
Not at all. It's a matter of asynchronous power play.
We can do the former as a fight against power, but we have to fight for it. When they do it to us, it's "just business" and we have no defense.
anyone can spin up a server and federate, anyone can suck up your data, corporations, governments or unknowns
Yes, but consuming data and using someone else's data for profit are 2 different things. Don't believe me, start reposting a large news websites data verbatim with AdSense on it and see how quickly the cease and desist comes.
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.
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 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.
I think it's about usage rights. People are fine with their post being on their chosen end of the fediverse forever but don't want corporations and news sites to generate a profit by using the posts. That is independent of federation, federation just makes it easier.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
Thank you for the detailed explanation. It matches what I've heard from others while having this same debate. Now allow me to explain my side.
This is the part I think is wrong and the cause of all of this. You can not find which implementations are part of the fediverse. No tracker that you can use has an up-to-date and accurate listing of implementations. New ones come online every day as some random developer builds something new. The fediverse doesn't have clear boundaries and I think the advertising that you mentioned does a disservice by implying it does. The fediverse is similar to the web; they're both based on open protocols and can be guided but not controlled, because anybody can build something on those protocols.
One response to this fuzziness has been to demand most features be opt-in. The reason I don't think this is tenable is because you have to have a hard boundary to determine what should be opt-in and what is ok to be opt-out. Your heuristic was native ActivityPub implementation. I don't think this scales (I feel like you're going to say this is a technological argument and therefore invalid, but it's also a social argument. Ppl don't want to use something that they have to constantly maintain. Constantly adding new servers/users to an allowlist is a chore that would drive ppl away. See google+ circles). It doesn't scale because like I said above new implementations pop up every day and these implementations are starting to branch away from the static archetypes we're used to (Twitter-like, Facebook-like, Reddit-like, etc). And some of them are existing projects that add AP support.
For instance, Hubzilla/Friendica has been bridging AP content for years. Do all of those instances require opt-in because they use a different protocol in addition to AP? There have also been bridges that translate RSS feeds to AP actor for years. Did the owners of those RSS feeds opt-in and should they have been required to?
What I'm trying to say is I think you're right that you can never keep up with the boundaries of the fediverse and where your posts end up. And I don't think there's an easy delineation for what should be opt-out vs opt-in. So instead we should be demanding that implementations add controls to our posts. Thinks like ACLs and OCAPs would allow you to control who can see your posts and interact with them and not care about new bridges/instances/whatever. Which is why I think the argument over opt-out vs opt-in is a distraction that will only keep the fediverse in this quasi-privacy space where you're dependent on yelling down any actor who is doing something with yours posts you don't like.
The situation is not truly comparable, tbh.
Artists very much retain legal rights to the art they create. Hence the current lawsuits against various AI companies. Meanwhile it depends on jurisdiction whether a comment/thought you write on a public-facing website can be considered your legal production for a civil lawsuit. It'd be trivial if it were a closed site with a very selective admission process with some easily evaluated barrier (say, only people who study at university XYZ are allowing on the otherwise private forum of that university), but public-facing it's more ambiguous.
You can still try to sue someone who taking that content, but it's not as clearcut that someone violates your rights as with artists and their art. Meaning that there's less basis for someone wanting this to always have to be explicitly opt-in and get explicit permission. At least right now. This might very well all change as a result of AI lawsuits.
Tbh, I wasn’t talking about the legalities of AI or copyright law. I was using that as an example of why opt-out is a shitty business practice that makes people frustrated and upset. Because people commenting on this post and defending the bridge don’t seem to understand that.
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.
Remember even large corporations standardising on truly open protocols can be reversed after whatever the situation leading up to it is resolved.
I just remember Jabber/XMPP federation which included Google. Once Google decided they got big enough, they abandoned it. Of course nothing happened to the protocol itself, it is well and alive both on Fortune 500 and selected as official choice for presence protocol on internet2.edu
Nostr vs Mastodon on Privacy & Autonomy:
Why I think nostr will win https://lemmy.ml/post/11570081
Have they by now come up with a way to moderate things?
Read the first bullet point:
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 ;)
It's just as scalable as fedi, I'd say it's even more scalable since relays don't need to communicate with each other, which reduces the cost to run a relay. The average user experience is basically identical. They download an app, it connects to a set of default relays (or they can choose some manually if they want), they tweet.
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.
nostr sounds interesting, any good android clients for nostr?
I recommend Amethyst which has all of the core features and very natural UX (similar to mastodon apps like Megalodon)
Literally backed by Jack Dorsey and crypto bullshit. Fuck off.
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...
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.
Well, 1 effective server. I would sure hope it actually runs on more than 1 for redundancy/latency reasons.
The server isnt effective by itself. Marketing and money to pay developers is. In comparison to mastodons completely open source approach, the proprietary bluesky software is a step back to the old ways. Its a public benefit llc which I can appreciate but it feels like someone wanted to show people that proprietary is always better. I‘m not a fan.
Didn't it just open for public registration too?
Yeah a couple of days ago
Bluesky lost? I'm all for corporate social media losing, but I think Bluesky has a bigger chance than Mastodon to become as big as Twitter at its peak, because of the money behind it. At least for the short/medium term. Long term, when Bluesky inevitably also falls due to enshittification or what not, Mastodon might win, unless it has splintered into a bunch of defederated clusters of drama at that point.
Personally I'll never join another corporate social media platform ever again. But I'm in a miniscule minority.
I‘m in this minuscule minority with you. Fuck corpos.
There are many of us!
amen!
Yeah I was about to say, I could see an argument for Mastodon having lost (it's momentum, which is the only thing it truly has going for it), but Bluesky? ~every podcaster I follow now advertises they're on bluesky instead of twitter, and most youtubers link to their bluesky, too. At least in the US it seems to have gotten decently popular tbh.
OTOH, we have the BBC and Flipboard being all-in on Mastodon, granted. Which is going to be fun when people get around to defederating them considering how it went for Threads.
How would Bluesky be falling to enshittification if it can be federated just like Mastodon?
Everyone always says Mastodon can't be ruined this way because you can always move to another Mastodon instance. Wouldn't that also be the case for Bluesky, once federation kicks off?
There's a for profit corporation behind it and they have investors. They'll find a way when they decide they need ROI and increase profits. They still haven't even disclosed how they'll monetize the platform afaik so they're just living off of investor capital thus far. First step of enshittification is when they monetize the platform. How it works when federated depends on how it's designed (I have no idea), but what happens to the network if Bluesky Social PBC goes under?
The issue, at least for me, is proprietary software. The protocol is open and the company seems to be non profit, both big plusses, but there is no reason whatsoever to make the software proprietary imo. Federation (depending with whom) is only good if one can use non proprietary software, otherwise they control you again.
But the AT Protocol is open, isn't it? Anyone can go ahead and create non proprietary software that lives on this protocol.
I understand your concerns regarding Bluesky specifically being proprietary, but as soon as someone creates an open source atproto server, you will be able to interact with Bluesky users without using proprietary software. It will require Bluesky to federate with instances using such software of course.
I agree that this would be a solution. Bluesky adding a bridge for ap would be 100.000 times easier though.
Why would anyone start anew? We have similar platforms already. One big downside is that someone buying into at protocol would need to start anew and bluesky is already so big that any instance needs to submit to their rule or wither.
Edit: any new instance would have to submit to their rule.
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".
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.
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.
When Twitter was bought by Musk I rushed to create myself a Mastodon. My hope was that most of the interesting, thoughtful people I followed on Twitter would eventually end up on Mastodon as Musk slowly ruined the platform. I kept my Twitter up just to keep tabs on them and grab their Mastodon handles as they shared them.
In the end, around half of them created Mastodon accounts that I follow to this day. All of them are inactive now.
At the same time I noticed more and more of them creating BS accounts. I think around 80% of them ended up in it. They're still quite active in BS to this day.
I open Mastodon and BS once daily. Former rarely has new posts, latter always has.
I really wanted all of them on Mastodon. I don't trust a corpo like BS. But the particular type of crowd I followed on Twitter (progressive essayists/humanities people, game journalists, artists, non-dev hobbyists, etc) seems to have mostly gone to BS, stayed on Twitter, gone to Cohost or back to Tumblr, or abandoned social media. I did find some interesting people active on Mastodon, mostly accesibility advocates, a couple of devs of games I loved and a few non brainrotten IT people. But the level of activity from my spheres of interest seems much higher on BS right now sadly.
I feel like its completely the opposite. Bluesky is just whining and screaming into the void while Mastodon feels like real stuff is actually happening. There are actually working feeds and a news section.
Bluesky has no hashtags or discovery mechanism other than the broken feeds that nobody knows how they work while on mastodon you can literally subscribe to hashtags like you'd subscribe to a community on lemmy. It's not even remotely close.
Mastodon only got bad rap because it started of decentralized and people are just too dumb for that apparently.
People care about Bluesky? Like at all? Interesting.
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 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
Next.
Dismissing an entire comment over the usage of a single word is closed minded. Language evolves over time, get used to it.
Literally obligatory reference
I don't see how that's accurate if it's jointly owned by its employees.
If this dev won't do it, another will in a proprietary fashion. These people have too much time on their hands.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Software developer Ryan Barrett found this out the hard way when he set out to connect the AT Protocol and ActivityPub with a bridge called Bridgy Fed.
Barrett planned to make the bridge opt-out by default, meaning that public Mastodon posts could show up on Bluesky without the author knowing, and vice versa.
In what one Bluesky user called “the funniest github issue page i have ever seen,” there was a heated debate over the opt-out default, which — like any good internet argument — included unfounded legal threats and devolved into bizarre personal attacks.
As a nonprofit, Mastodon’s appeal is that, unlike Instagram or Twitter or YouTube, it’s not controlled by a big corporation that needs to make its investors happy.
The ideological issues around Bridgy Fed are likely to continue stoking tension across these federated social networks as they increase their connection points.
“I am thinking and feeling deeply that however content moderation works on either side of the bridge, it needs to be at least as good as it is for native fediverse users, and vice versa,” Barrett said.
The original article contains 1,176 words, the summary contains 182 words. Saved 85%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I'm in mastodon but I wouldn't mind trying Bluesky when there are third party servers.
I for one, welcome the presence of bluesky.
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.