Bluesky is more open than you think.
-
Or even 33% as we should count PieFed and Mbin too (this makes 48k MAU overall). All 3 "apps" make one network.
Good point!
-
Very useful, thanks.
As I see it, Bluesky is fundamentally different from Xitter and it is a major step in the right direction. It is short-sighted to reject it because of some technical imperfections.
The fundamental question IMO is whether there is enough mindshare (i.e. users and attention) to allow ATSocial (AKA partial federation) and ActivityPub (AKA total federation) to both be successful. I'm thinking there is. After all, the vast majority of people are still on ad-fuelled corporate social media, with all its internal contradictions.
I think the technical imperfections are not the real reason people are against it. In my opinion it just can't be trusted to have a corp in control. It would be like having Microsoft own the activity pub repo.
-
I hope I am not adding to the problem here as well. It seems that obviously Bluesky is neither fully centralized nor fully decentralized. Is there a statement about just how much of either it is?
Although that might be complicated - like someone could say that Lemmy is fairly centralized, bc if you block Lemmy.World then you lose half the users and perhaps half the communities (and PieFed even more so, with PieFed.social representing an even higher fraction of users and communities on it).
So there is a distinction between Bluesky the service as it currently is implemented and Bluesky the protocol, the former of which is fairly centralized but the latter is more expandable?
I just say bluesky because that's what everyone knows it as. I'm really talking about its network.
Its not very well distributed, because almost everyone is on bluesky's meganodes.
Its more of a social problem than a technical problem at this point. -
Lemmy.ml, lemmy.world, lemmy.zip and any other instance run on the same software
Wafrn doesn't run the same software as Bluesky.social
My point was that the network was fairly centralised in the beginning. The people behind atproto.africa are working on an alternate bluesky appview anyway.
-
As I understand (I could be wrong) bridgy is not useful as it could be as it got bullied into being opt-in instead of opt-out.
You would be correct.
-
I think the technical imperfections are not the real reason people are against it. In my opinion it just can't be trusted to have a corp in control. It would be like having Microsoft own the activity pub repo.
I agree with you there.
I wish they put a bit more effort into getting people onto independant servers.
They took to opposite approch of mastodon: they abandoned proper distribution for better growth.In any case, ActivityPub and atproto can both coexist.
-
My point was that the network was fairly centralised in the beginning. The people behind atproto.africa are working on an alternate bluesky appview anyway.
Good to hear!
The main difference is still that every work put into Bluesky.social can not be reused by other "servers", unlike Lemmy
-
My point was that the network was fairly centralised in the beginning. The people behind atproto.africa are working on an alternate bluesky appview anyway.
Still is. Always will be.
-
Well, that problem also exists with mastodon.social and a lot of the actual fediverse.
Its less decentralised, but its still distributed.Mastodon is more open than you think.
You made a post to attempt to dispell what you consider a misunderstanding about BlueSky, yet your comment suggests you dont understand the Fediverse.
Well, that problem also exists with mastodon.social
No, it doesn't. There are thousands of instances, some with hundreds of thousands of users. If you sort the instance list by active users, the population spreads out even more, because smaller instances have more active users.
and a lot of the actual fediverse.
Wrong again. Lemmy.world is about 30% of Lemmy, and less when you include Mbin, PieFed, etc.
Its less distributed, but its still decentralised.
I run a Fedi instance connected to hundreds of others. If one, even a large one, defederates me, it does not cut me off. If I ran a PDS, I'd be connected to BlueSky, and they can do what they want.
You are rationalizing this to yourself because you like BlueSky.
-
Well, that problem also exists with mastodon.social and a lot of the actual fediverse.
Its less decentralised, but its still distributed.That's at a very different level. With dot social it's about a quarter of the active users on the fediverse, whereas bluesky is probably something like 95% centralized in practice. It seems to keep improving, but right now it's basically impossible to use without mostly interacting with bsky.
-
Mastodon is more open than you think.
You made a post to attempt to dispell what you consider a misunderstanding about BlueSky, yet your comment suggests you dont understand the Fediverse.
Well, that problem also exists with mastodon.social
No, it doesn't. There are thousands of instances, some with hundreds of thousands of users. If you sort the instance list by active users, the population spreads out even more, because smaller instances have more active users.
and a lot of the actual fediverse.
Wrong again. Lemmy.world is about 30% of Lemmy, and less when you include Mbin, PieFed, etc.
Its less distributed, but its still decentralised.
I run a Fedi instance connected to hundreds of others. If one, even a large one, defederates me, it does not cut me off. If I ran a PDS, I'd be connected to BlueSky, and they can do what they want.
You are rationalizing this to yourself because you like BlueSky.
You're misinterpreting my comment, I said that getting cut off a large server is a problem in any network. The problem is worse on bluesky, but that can change.
If I run a PDS, I connect to bluesky and other instances as well. I can get cut off bluesky's server, but there is other servers.I'm not rationalising anything, I just think the discourse around bluesky is toxic, and I want to at least make it less annoying.
I don't even like bluesky, I do like the underlying protocol though. -
That's at a very different level. With dot social it's about a quarter of the active users on the fediverse, whereas bluesky is probably something like 95% centralized in practice. It seems to keep improving, but right now it's basically impossible to use without mostly interacting with bsky.
I know, but that wasn't my point. Getting cut off by a large server is a problem in any network.
Yes, its bad that bluesky controls most of atproto, but its possible to use atproto without bluesky. -
Still is. Always will be.
I really hate this attitude.
Most people who are against bluesky don't even care about an open internet or whatever, they just want their protocol to win or whatever.
-
Good to hear!
The main difference is still that every work put into Bluesky.social can not be reused by other "servers", unlike Lemmy
I'm not quite sure what you mean here to be honest.
-
I really hate this attitude.
Most people who are against bluesky don't even care about an open internet or whatever, they just want their protocol to win or whatever.
Sure seems like that's what you're doing. Notice how no one is against ATProto. Your post title is about BlueSky, not about ATProto.
We don't care about the protocol, despite what you think. Your average Lemmy user isn't on a standards body. We care about the network it facilitates.
Volunteers run the Fediverse, keeping it open. The former Twitter CEO runs BlyeSky. Want to start an actual open network running ATProto? Go for it.
-
Sure seems like that's what you're doing. Notice how no one is against ATProto. Your post title is about BlueSky, not about ATProto.
We don't care about the protocol, despite what you think. Your average Lemmy user isn't on a standards body. We care about the network it facilitates.
Volunteers run the Fediverse, keeping it open. The former Twitter CEO runs BlyeSky. Want to start an actual open network running ATProto? Go for it.
I don't think you should be critising bluesky when you don't even know who the CEO is.
-
You're misinterpreting my comment, I said that getting cut off a large server is a problem in any network. The problem is worse on bluesky, but that can change.
If I run a PDS, I connect to bluesky and other instances as well. I can get cut off bluesky's server, but there is other servers.I'm not rationalising anything, I just think the discourse around bluesky is toxic, and I want to at least make it less annoying.
I don't even like bluesky, I do like the underlying protocol though.No I'm not, you're just hot-swapping between ATProto and BlueSky, cherry picking the best parts of whichever to suit the debate. See: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/47335289/19626444
-
No I'm not, you're just hot-swapping between ATProto and BlueSky, cherry picking the best parts of whichever to suit the debate. See: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/47335289/19626444
No, because you said bluesky is run by Jack dorsey, and you're critising bluesky, not atproto, like you said.
-
I'm not quite sure what you mean here to be honest.
If the Lemmy devs implement a feature, all Lemmy instances can update and get that feature.
Based on what you are saying, the people behind atproto.africa have to implement their own alternative to the Bluesky appview (I guess because they can't reuse Bluesky.social code?)
-
If the Lemmy devs implement a feature, all Lemmy instances can update and get that feature.
Based on what you are saying, the people behind atproto.africa have to implement their own alternative to the Bluesky appview (I guess because they can't reuse Bluesky.social code?)
No, they just want to develop it themselves so they have no reliance on bluesky.
