It's a very long post, but a lot of it is a detailed discussion of terminology in the appendix -- no need to read that unless you're into definitional struggles.

top 49 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 80 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

bluesky is run by a single org, and you have to beg them to let their router include your 'independent' instance. it is a closed garden.

it is like federating with facebook (not threads) by begging facebook to include your server and content into their garden.

thats not open federation. even after they let you in, they could take their ball home and lock it down at any moment.

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Agreed that Bluesky's run by a single corporation so it's different than today's ActivityPub Fediverse, but the Fediverse's historical approach to "open federation" isn't the only approach. Even in the ActivityPub world we're seeing more and more experimentation with allow-list federation.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

allow lists run by individual instances..not a gatekeeping board of a single entity.

my points stand. if you want to join a true federating twitter clone youre not using the atprotocol.

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

For people who want to join a twitter clone there aren't any good ActivityPub options -- Mastodon's good at other things, but isn't a good Twitter alternative let along clone. And ActivityPub's version of "true federation" isn't the only kind of federation. That said, I agree that AT isn't an option for people who want to join a federating-in-theActivityPub-sense-of-the-word Twitter clone,

[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

In what way is mastodon a bad twitter alternative?

I love Mastodon, but I never actually used twitter much so I don't have much of a sense for why Mastodon might not be comparable

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago

Have a look here https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/17718832/11190856

[–] Blaze@feddit.org 48 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Hello,

I skimmed through the article. Isn't Bluesky one billionaire purchase away from becoming the new X (and in this case, I don't mean Twitter)?

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 weeks ago

Yep. And that's far from the only way it could work out badly. I talk about this a bit in the section on "Bluesky is a useful counterweight to Threads"

Bluesky is far from perfect. They're venture-funded, so likely to end with an exploitative business model. They've got a surveillance-capitalism friendly all-public architecture. It's great that Jack Dorsey's no longer on the board but he was.

[+] catloaf@lemm.ee -6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No. It's already owned by multibillionaire Jack Dorsey.

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 30 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

This is straight up misinformation, Dorsey was on the Bluesky's board, but left in May. As far as I'm aware, he's never even invested in the company (but he has given money to the nostr devs).

[–] aasatru@kbin.earth 3 points 2 weeks ago

It did originate from Twitter. Somehow Twitter at the time considered it wise to split it into a separate entity, and Dorsey was fine with not controlling it. And then Twitter was sold, and Dorsey and Bluesky grew apart from each other.

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago

Correct. Dorsey's early involvement is certainly grounds for concern -- the way I think of it, he's gone now but his stench lingers on -- but he's not influential there going forward.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago

Oh, I didn't know that. Everything I've heard about it associates them together.

[–] noodlejetski@lemm.ee 36 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

BlueSky is cosplaying decentralization https://rys.io/en/167.html

[–] Blaze@feddit.org 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There is this thread too: https://feddit.org/post/2656676

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago

Kuba's link i that thread is good, it looks like there's currently about 370 PDS's -- Bridgy Fed got an exception from Bluesky so is the only one that currently has more than 10 uses. https://blue.mackuba.eu/directory/pdses I know some people who just run the open-source code for Bluesky's PDS (which is pretty straightforward) and some run other implementations.

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Blueksy's approach to decentralization is very different from ActivityPub but it's definitely decentralized. (Also that article's over a year old, and some things have changed since then.). But, like I say in the article, not everybody is so welcoming!

[–] sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They're still cosplaying decentralisation. Google hosts images on a separate domain to the one where they serve documents, are they decentralised? When we see more indexers, by all means let's consider BlueSky decentralised, but until then, they're just offloading traffic.

[–] ericjmorey 1 points 2 weeks ago

I hope they start supporting people who want to run an indexer. Right now they just point to their source code and say, "if you can get this largely undocumented complex service running on your own, you can run a indexer, but don't ask us for any help".

I'm not entirely confident that it will happen before their only funding source decides to cut off the cash flow.

[–] mat@zelk.space -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

@thenexusofprivacy we can’t tell bluesky is fediverse even though it’s decentralized imo

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You're not the only one who thinks that way -- opinions differ!

[–] mat@zelk.space 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

@thenexusofprivacy to me, as long as bluesky can’t properly communicate and federate with any social network (activitypub apps included) we can’t define it as fediversed but I’m curious to have your opinion

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Personally I think that the connectivity via Bridgy Fed and Friendica are strong enough that it makes sense to consider Bluesky an instance on the ActivityPub Fediverse. Threads currently has less connectivity, and people in general consider it part of the Fediverse. For what it's worth, in a discussion on Social Hub, Evan Prodromou also said he saw Bluesky as an instance in the ActivityPub Fediverse.

I also think that the ATmosphere is fediverse (descentralized social network) in its own right. So is Bluesky, as well as being part of the AcivityPub Fediverse and the ATmosphere.

But others define the Fediverse differently, https://privacy.thenexus.today/is-bluesky-part-of-todays-fediverse/ goes into a lot of detail on the different views.

[–] mat@zelk.space 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

@thenexusofprivacy so if I follow your pattern, we can also consider twitter as an instance of the activitypub fediverse as some accounts are crossposting/mirroring their twitter acccount on mastodon (as such as @_formula1_) ?

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago

I personally wouldn't say so -- crossposting isn't the same as two-way communications -- but others might.

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 27 points 2 weeks ago

Not sure about Bluesky, but welcome Brazilians!

[–] scytale@lemm.ee 24 points 2 weeks ago

Getting the BTS fanbase to switch platforms is huge and can essentially get you millions of users in an instant. I wish Mastodon was in the picture though.

[–] jaredwhite@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm squarely in the AT protocol is not the Fediverse camp. Fine if people want to enjoy Bluesky, but the Fediverse is built on top of the W3C protocol ActivityPub. AT is incompatible. Cool that there's a bridge, but a bridge between incompatible protocols will always be a bit of a hack in my book.

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You're not the only one who sees it that way. Historically the Fediverse was always multi-protocol but some people don't think it shojld be today. I talked about this view some in https://privacy.thenexus.today/is-bluesky-part-of-todays-fediverse/

"Anyhow, if Evan and Eugen and SWF and fediverse.party want to choose a definition of Fediverse where history stopped with Mastodon's 2017 adoption of ActivityPub, erases earlier Fediverse history, and ties the Fediverse's success to a protocol that has major issues ... they can do that. "The Fediverse" means different things to different people. It's still worth asking why they choose that definition."

[–] jaredwhite@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

You seem to be incorrectly stating what is on Wikipedia, which leads:

The fediverse (commonly shortened to fedi)[1][2][3] is a collection of social networking services that can communicate with each other (formally known as federation) using a common protocol.

That last bit is absolutely key: a collection of services using a common protocol. Imagine if two different email servers didn't both speak SMTP. Imagine if two different web services didn't both speak HTTP. The Internet as a singular entity is only made possible because of protocol interop between all of its constituent parts.

To say "the fediverse" is comprised of multiple incompatible protocols goes against that grain, and to go back to pre-ActivityPub-as-W3C-specification days as an argument that it's fine to label multiple incompatible protocols as all being components of "the fediverse" is a stretch.

To me, this isn't a let's-agree-to-disagree-issue, honestly. While the term "fediverse" is arguably colloquial and doesn't necessarily imply any specific technical attributes, it ceases to be useful as a term if Fediverse Platform A cannot in any way communicate with Fediverse Platform B because the two platforms happen to be using 100% incompatible protocols. Aside from a third-party bridge, the AT protocol used by Bluesky is 100% incompatible with ActivityPub used by Mastodon, Threads, and others. Therefore, they cannot both be simultaneously services in the fediverse.

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago

For what it's worth, the guy who mostly maintains the Wikipedia page agrees with you. And yet even so, at least for now, the Wikipedia page states "The majority of fediverse platforms ... create connections between servers using the ActivityPub protocol" -- which pretty clearly implies that not all fediverse platforms use the ActivityPub protocol.

Anyhow whether or not you agree to disagree ... we disagree. Time will tell how broad usage of the term evolves. In the original article I pointed to examples of TechCrunch and Mike Masnick using the term in the broader sense, but maybe those will turn out to be points off the curve. We shall see!

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 14 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I think, possibly like many others, since BlueSky came from the creator of Twitter, I do not trust it. At the moment, I don't even think there's anything anybody can say about it that would make me want to even test it. It just feels tainted.

Also, what is BlueSky promising? A new Twitter? The fediverse is making so much more possible: new Twitter(s), new Youtube, new Instagram, new Reddit, and it's even being put into Wordpress, maybe even Tumblr, and who knows what else. How does BlueSky fit into that puzzle?

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 13 points 2 weeks ago

I don't trust it because there's no believable plan to make it commercially viable, so it's just going to end up defunct or enshittified. Mastodon is up front, it's a volunteer service that you can either pay for or roll the dice on the instance staying up. And there's a built-in way to move on when one goes down.

BlueSky is a B-corp, which theoretically means they can say their mission takes priority if sued by an investor in court, but doesn't in any way require them to make it the primary goal, and the reality of funding and money and investors means that's almost certainly not going to happen.

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Dorsey's not involved in Bluesky any more but I agree that there are lots of reasons not to trust them (including Dorsey's original involvement).

Bluesky's currently a much better Twitter alternative than Mastodon but I totally agree, there's a lot more to social networking than that. I talk about ways I see Bulesky as complementary to the ActivityPub section in the last section, "It's the end of the Fediverse as we know it – and I feel fine"

[–] OhYeah@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Can I ask why you say Mastodon isn't a good twitter alternative and maybe what it could do to improve? Sorry if I missed that part in the article

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago

You didn't miss it, I didn't go into detail on it in the article ... one big reason is that because of how ActivityPub works you only see a fragment of the overall conversation (instead of everything). If you're on a big well-connected instance like mastodon.social you see more of it but still not all; if you're on a smaller not-so-well-connected instance you miss most of it. This comes in conversations (the "missing replies" problem), with search, and with hashtags.

Another reason is that Twitter's got a lot of journalists, activists and organizers, politicians, government agencies, athletes, etc ... and Mastodon for the most part doesn't. That's not a technical issue, but for most people, following one or more of those groups is something they're used to from Twitter, so Mastodon doesn't fill the same role.

Again, there's plenty of stuff Mastodon is good at! And Twitter clones replicate Twitter's problems as well as what people like about it. But for people who are sick of Twitter and want a similar experience elsewhere (as opposed to trying something different), they're more likely to get what they want on Bluesky (and in many cases even Threads, especially if they already have an Instagram account and don't want to see political stuff) than Mastodon.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Maybe competition will make the Fediverse better? With or without Bluesky in the loop, we could take inspiration from their unique features and what people like about their platform. I certainly didn't know they take onboarding seriously and offer shared blocklists and useful stuff like that...

[–] dsilverz@thelemmy.club 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Just a small Portuguese correction: "Bem vendos aos fediverses" should be "Bem-vindos aos fediversos!".

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago

Thanks very much, fixed now!

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They're going to federate with ActivityPub?

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Bridgy Fed and Friendica already connect Bluesky to the ActivityPub Fediverse.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

To bridge your fediverse account into Bluesky and interact with people there, search for and follow @bsky.brid.gy@bsky.brid.gy. That account will then follow you back. Accept its follow to make sure your fediverse posts get sent the bridge and make it into Bluesky.

https://fed.brid.gy/docs#fediverse-get-started

I mean, I guess, but that's pretty convoluted and opt-in, not so much a direct compatible connection from Bluesky to the Fediverse. And you'd have to trust them regarding privacy.

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Agreed that Bridgy Fed is opt-in ... I see consent as a good thing, but not everybody agrees.

And yeah, Bluesky's just ike any other instance, you have to trust them with privacy. I think the argument that Bluesky, Flipboard, Threads, and Wordress.com-hosted blogs shouldn't be considered part of the Fediverse is intellectually consistent, I just don't see a lot of people making that argument. But, "the Fedivese" means different things to different people, the followup post Is Bluesky part of today's Fediverse? goes into a huge amount of detail on that ...

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I was referring to Bridgy, not Bluesky, regarding privacy. It acts like a middleman between whatever you're using and Bluesky. And it isn't really opt-in in that sense, because the majority of users would not even be aware of this even existing. An opt-in feature would be directly implemented into a platform, like a toggle you could switch within your account settings. Whether that is opt-in or opt-out is personal preference I guess, but with that logic it should be ideally the same for all native instances as well.

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago

Ah okay, I agree that you need to trust Bridgy Fed from a privacy and security perpective. Also agreed that most people don't know Bridgy Fed exists, and that's a problem. And yes, it would be better for the platforms to have more support for opt-in federation, but alas Mastodon's documentation describes allow-list federation as opposed to their mission ... I asked Renaud a while ago whether that was likely to change and he said no. So, yeah, it's certainly far from a perfect solution.

[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

So, I find people talking about blue sky confusing; if I search for a bluesky user to follow via Mastodon, I don't see them come up. Does that just mean my server isn't federated with them? I'm on mastodon.online, which I think is one of the biggest instances.

It'd be cool if I could actually interact with blue sky but it's really not clear to me how it works if I don't have a blue sky account and am interacting externally

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There isn't direct federation between Mastodon and Bluesky; instead, Bridgy Fed connects them - https://fed.brid.gy/docs#fediverse-get-started

[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Gotcha. I understand why they chose to do it that way, but I do kinda wish it was possible to just follow someone

Thank you very much for the link/explanation!

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah, it's somewhat useful but certainly not a great solution. It's great that they went the opt-in route, but there aren't any good existing frameworks for how to do it, so they had to roll their own. There's certainly room for improvement, it would be great if either Bluesky or the Social Web Foundation (or both) or somebody else invested in it, but hard to know if and when thta'll happen.