Great ATProto blog post on the reasoning behind their design architecture
-
Would love to know why you think it's not?
Because it's not functional without BSky servers and BSky also retains control of moderation.
-
The Fediverse is a specific thing. And even if it were just referring to any federated social network, it's very questionable whether Bluesky really can have independent instances.
-
I'm fully aware that might not be #1 goal at the end of the day, but we're starting to see multiple social media networks start to exist with their own infrastructure on ATProto (https://sprk.so/ is in beta) and more importantly hosted outside the US.
These separate networks can interact with the BlueSky network if they choose so and the BlueSky network can interact with theirs if they use their Lexicon. There are other lightweight apps being built on top of BlueSkys Lexicon and relay system as well that are whole separate apps.
To say that's not their goal is a little weird because it's possible right now? Sure it might be difficult but they've merged quite a few changes to make the relay system much more accessible, and have put a lot of effort into the identity system recently.
That's a different type of social network, which is also good, but the point is you are heavily incentivized to make another microblog relay.
-
Posted in another comment but wikipedia disagrees.
The Fediverse (commonly shortened to fedi)[4][5][6] is a collection of social networking services that can communicate with each other (formally known as federation) using a common protocol.
We can argue semantics all day but at the end of the day I'll hold the same stance that we shouldn't be fracturing the communities and instead discussing the content and idea of a decentralized communicating social media landscape.
wE CaN aRgUe SeMaNtiCs aLL dAy
we shouldn't be fracturing the communities
Maybe use the same protocol, then.
-
That's a different type of social network, which is also good, but the point is you are heavily incentivized to make another microblog relay.
Not sure of the point here? If your end goal is decentralization yes run another relay similar to how you'd host a Mastodon instance.
Even if you create a whole new network with a whole new Lexicon, BlueSkys firehouse intakes all Lexicons
-
Because it's not functional without BSky servers and BSky also retains control of moderation.
This is just wrong. Another platform similar to tiktok(spark) is in beta with their own infrastructure outside of all Bluesky servers and they have to deal with their own moderation. They can choose to read in any Bluesky data they please and bluesky can do the same with theirs.
If Bluesky shuts down all servers tomorrow they still exist. The federation is simply adopting their Lexicon into your relay and appview.
If you want a microblogging platform specifically you can easily run your own infrastructure similar to running an instance, intake all BlueSky posts and if Bluesky shuts down your app will continue operating using BlueSkys lexicon, however you'll have to manage your own moderation.
-
This is just wrong. Another platform similar to tiktok(spark) is in beta with their own infrastructure outside of all Bluesky servers and they have to deal with their own moderation. They can choose to read in any Bluesky data they please and bluesky can do the same with theirs.
If Bluesky shuts down all servers tomorrow they still exist. The federation is simply adopting their Lexicon into your relay and appview.
If you want a microblogging platform specifically you can easily run your own infrastructure similar to running an instance, intake all BlueSky posts and if Bluesky shuts down your app will continue operating using BlueSkys lexicon, however you'll have to manage your own moderation.
Its not wrong. The COO of BSky herself told me this.
-
By “Fediverse” people usually refer to “ActivityPub”-based social networks such as Mastodon and Lemmy.
People also rightfully argue that Bluesky, despite the best of intentions, is not decentralised. See How decentralized is Bluesky really? (long read).
-
The literal first line of Wikipedia agrees with me?
The Fediverse (commonly shortened to fedi)[4][5][6] is a collection of social networking services that can communicate with each other (formally known as federation) using a common protocol.
I believe you're quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse
It seems that document currently expresses that "the AT Protocol, which powers the Bluesky social network" is "[a] major protocol in competition with the Fediverse", which suggests that neither "the AT Protocol" nor "Bluesky" are included in the Fediverse.
Moreover, "AT Protocol" and "Bluesky" are conspicuously absent from the second paragraph of the article content / lead section.
The majority of Fediverse platforms are based on free and open-source software, and create connections between servers using the ActivityPub protocol. Some software still supports older federation protocols as well, such as OStatus, the Diaspora protocol and Zot. Diaspora* is the only actively developed software project classified under the original definition of Fediverse that does not support ActivityPub.
There discussion related to this around https://thebrainbin.org/m/[email protected]/t/705694/-/comment/5682529
-
This post did not contain any content.
This is interesting, but I don't yet entirely understand it.
My first thought after trying to read the entire document was that the author seems to suggest that "AT Protocol" is a natural result of the movements they describe, but I find it hard to believe that the "peer-to-peer (p2p) movement" could naturally result in things that "are not meaningfully decentralized, and are not federated".
-
This post did not contain any content.
I know all you guys comment about fediverse(activityPub) is not bsky(atprotocol) but can we enjoy this stupid quote for a moment?
However, if the internet is functioning properly and you have a computer, an internet connection, and an IP address you can host a document on the web.
That statement is so redundant.
"internet functioning properly" = "an internet connection"
and you cant have an internet connection without an ip adress. On Lan you may have the option to let the device decide BUT it still needs one!I dont think the entire article is bad or something but let me have my nitpickings.
- its too long, and with that i mean half the thing is 3 concepts that could have been explained shorter
- too many fancy words (i am not a native & my reading comprehension gets worse at all those extravagant marketing words, so thats my error)
- not including the one picture of the protocoll/network topology. I needed to keep that in my brain to not get confused Masto Post with Topology
- that one paragraph at the post start but can happen to anyone so its simply hilarious
-
I believe you're quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse
It seems that document currently expresses that "the AT Protocol, which powers the Bluesky social network" is "[a] major protocol in competition with the Fediverse", which suggests that neither "the AT Protocol" nor "Bluesky" are included in the Fediverse.
Moreover, "AT Protocol" and "Bluesky" are conspicuously absent from the second paragraph of the article content / lead section.
The majority of Fediverse platforms are based on free and open-source software, and create connections between servers using the ActivityPub protocol. Some software still supports older federation protocols as well, such as OStatus, the Diaspora protocol and Zot. Diaspora* is the only actively developed software project classified under the original definition of Fediverse that does not support ActivityPub.
There discussion related to this around https://thebrainbin.org/m/[email protected]/t/705694/-/comment/5682529
Yeah I think we've been having on off discussions about ATProto's place in the Fediverse here for probably 2ish years in multiple threads.
Looks like today the crowd has finally more sternly come to a decision lol. I think there were threads last year here around this ATProto with a lot better nuance and discussion, but Bluesky has been getting a lot of hate and misinformation thrown at it from this pocket of the internet lately, which is somewhat disappointing since they both the pocket should operate symbiotically.
Possibly a sign of newer Lemmy users though which is good regardless.
-
This is interesting, but I don't yet entirely understand it.
My first thought after trying to read the entire document was that the author seems to suggest that "AT Protocol" is a natural result of the movements they describe, but I find it hard to believe that the "peer-to-peer (p2p) movement" could naturally result in things that "are not meaningfully decentralized, and are not federated".
I think they meant mostly the decentralised distribution of data.
At the end of "Generic hosting, Centralised product development" it saysEven though product development is centralized, the underlying data and identity remain open and universally accessible as a result of building on atproto. Put another way, ownership is clear for the evolution of a given application, but since the data is open, it can be reused, remixed, or extended by anyone else in the network.
So theoretically everyone can access the data but before it reaches the end users it goes through centralised applications like bsky -
I know all you guys comment about fediverse(activityPub) is not bsky(atprotocol) but can we enjoy this stupid quote for a moment?
However, if the internet is functioning properly and you have a computer, an internet connection, and an IP address you can host a document on the web.
That statement is so redundant.
"internet functioning properly" = "an internet connection"
and you cant have an internet connection without an ip adress. On Lan you may have the option to let the device decide BUT it still needs one!I dont think the entire article is bad or something but let me have my nitpickings.
- its too long, and with that i mean half the thing is 3 concepts that could have been explained shorter
- too many fancy words (i am not a native & my reading comprehension gets worse at all those extravagant marketing words, so thats my error)
- not including the one picture of the protocoll/network topology. I needed to keep that in my brain to not get confused Masto Post with Topology
- that one paragraph at the post start but can happen to anyone so its simply hilarious
not including the one picture of the protocoll/network topology
This is a solid one from their wiki
-
Because it's not functional without BSky servers and BSky also retains control of moderation.
After reading the article i think you might be wrong with this one.
From what i got now is that there are 3 layers
First is storage which can be completly or is decentralised
Then backend/server/application layer which can be bsky or whatever ticktok alternative gets made which is not decentralised
and then user layer/view which depends on the application
What i want to say is that the relay can be exchanged through something else
So pro atProto is:
- data seems to be actually decentralised
- applications sharing the data
- everyone gets the data
And pro ActivityPub is:
- more alternatives of the same application/server
- way better control over data (federation & defederation)
- servers interact with each other nativly (atPr seems to let the servers only interact with data)
- more efficient (servers can update clients, in case of at least bsky clients have to ask servers)
pro ActivityPub? (unsure about the technical details)
- moderation? As in shared lists
- able to host by individuals? As in i dont need an compute intensive relay
-
not including the one picture of the protocoll/network topology
This is a solid one from their wiki
-
The "Fediverse" (capital F) refers to the social media platforms utilizing ActivityPub, specifically. I don't believe there's any agreed-upon name for such a network on ATProto, since Bluesky is the only platform actively using it.
I don’t believe there’s any agreed-upon name for such a network on ATProto
They use the term 'Atmosphere' which is, admittedly, a really good play on words.
-
After reading the article i think you might be wrong with this one.
From what i got now is that there are 3 layers
First is storage which can be completly or is decentralised
Then backend/server/application layer which can be bsky or whatever ticktok alternative gets made which is not decentralised
and then user layer/view which depends on the application
What i want to say is that the relay can be exchanged through something else
So pro atProto is:
- data seems to be actually decentralised
- applications sharing the data
- everyone gets the data
And pro ActivityPub is:
- more alternatives of the same application/server
- way better control over data (federation & defederation)
- servers interact with each other nativly (atPr seems to let the servers only interact with data)
- more efficient (servers can update clients, in case of at least bsky clients have to ask servers)
pro ActivityPub? (unsure about the technical details)
- moderation? As in shared lists
- able to host by individuals? As in i dont need an compute intensive relay
But what about the DIDs, the things used to actually identify accounts within the ATproto ecosystem:
But Bluesky has developed its own DID method, did:plc. Today, did:plc stands for "Public Ledger of Credentials", however it originally stood for "Placeholder DIDs", with the hope of replacing them with something else later. The way that did:plc works is that Bluesky hosts a web service from which one can register, retrieve, and rotate keys (and other associated DID document information). However, this ledger is centrally controlled by Bluesky.
-
The Fediverse is a specific thing. And even if it were just referring to any federated social network, it's very questionable whether Bluesky really can have independent instances.
The ATProto equivalent of "Fediverse" is Atmosphere.
-
I think they meant mostly the decentralised distribution of data.
At the end of "Generic hosting, Centralised product development" it saysEven though product development is centralized, the underlying data and identity remain open and universally accessible as a result of building on atproto. Put another way, ownership is clear for the evolution of a given application, but since the data is open, it can be reused, remixed, or extended by anyone else in the network.
So theoretically everyone can access the data but before it reaches the end users it goes through centralised applications like bskyI'm not sure that your reply is directly related to my comment. The full sentence I quoted is "Under these definitions, Bluesky and ATProto are not meaningfully decentralized, and are not federated either." by Christine Lemmer-Webber, but Daniel Holmgren talked more directly about "decentralised distribution of data".
Because of what I quoted, I don't think that "Bluesky" or "ATProto" are decentralized or federated, so it's extremely unlikely that I'll interact with them anytime soon. The particular reason that they are not decentralized or federated is not really interesting to me.
To get specific: it is a significant issue for me if "everyone can access the data but before it reaches the end users it goes through centralised applications". A "centralised application" is able to restrict my ability to contact other people, whereas with a federated and/or decentralized/distributed system, it's more likely that I will be able to contact someone that I want to communicate with. For comparison, consider how people would feel if using the United States Postal Service meant that all physical mail had to pass through the District of Columbia or if sending an email message required interacting with
BBN-TENEXAjust because that was the first machine to be capable of sending networked electronic mail. In the ideal case, the recipient of a message I send would not have to coordinate with me at all before they receive the message: "The first use of network email announced its own existence."
