tidderuuf@lemmy.world
on 07 Sep 17:00
nextcollapse
Author: points out how Bluesky is not decentralized.
Also Author: only points out how people are arguing about how Bluesky is decentralized.
Author: Mission Accomplished.
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
on 07 Sep 17:05
nextcollapse
Since we have Mississippi as an example... Why not just look how it turned out for the people there? Do or don't they have a communications platform now that connects them to a network of other people? I feel that's way more helpful than discussing what should be discussed, or talking about theoretical details.
irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 08 Sep 17:11
collapse
If they use deer.social or zeppelin.social (alternate bluesky instances), they can evade the bans and blocks.
Ah, thanks. And are those people then connected to the same network and can follow each other, or are those entirely seperate? Pardon my lack of knowledge about Bluesky and ATProto.
irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 08 Sep 17:37
collapse
Bluesky’s network has 2 main layers, the PDS layer, and the appview layer.
Everyone’s PDS stores their posts, likes and account, and handles authentication.
It doesn’t do anything else. an appview gathers posts from PDSes, and indexes and sorts them (for feeds and notifications).
AppViews all share the same posts, so they’re in the same network.
unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
on 07 Sep 17:31
nextcollapse
I will continue to point it out as long as people keep recommending it. Its not a minor complaint or a small point of disagreement, its a complete deal breaker that makes the platform worthless to invest any time in. No matter how much time passes it will always be a shit platform as long as its centralized.
Also bluesky isnt part of the fediverse so this doesnt even really belong in here…
airportline@lemmy.zip
on 07 Sep 17:57
nextcollapse
Also bluesky isnt part of the fediverse so this doesnt even really belong in here…
There are four other posts about Bluesky or ATProto on the front page of !fediverse@lemmy.world (when viewed from lemmy.zip), so I guessed otherwise.
go to https://reddwarf.whey.party and all requests will be made to Constellation (a hobby project which tracks backlinks of records, which is completely independent of Bluesky PBC), the PDSes directly, and Bluesky's CDN (which is negligible since a CDN can be an easy replacement on a small scale)
unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
on 08 Sep 06:32
collapse
99.99% of users on bluesky.social = centralized no matter what cute little toys people built on the side
No, they chose bsky because it works well and is an alternative to twitter, idk why anyone would choose againsy a decentralised platform.
unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
on 09 Sep 15:55
collapse
Its works well for normies because it is centralized. Every time you see non nerds discuss the lack of widespread fediverse adoption the main reason is “picking a server is intimidating”. 90% of bluesky users (probably more) have never heard of the fediverse or know what “decentralized” even means. They picked it because it was easy and because the centralized moderation seemed more trustworthy than the one on twitter.
Literally the whole point of bluesky is to try to make a platform that is decentralized and that people will flock to even if they’re normies. To catch the twitter wave they did the second part before the first. Eventually other companies will pop up that use ATproto and normies will grow to understand that they’re federated.
unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
on 09 Sep 17:53
collapse
Keep dreaming then. Like damn some people just want to believe the most unrealistic stuff.
So far we have a 100% enshittification rate of all social media platforms of this scale. They all started out supposedly open, free speech focused and hackable and they all fell to greed. There is absolutely nothing stopping bluesky from saying “hmm look at those 40 millions users we have locked into our walled garden, lets extract money from them” and there is nothing you would be able to do about it.
Until the main server accounts for <30% of all bluesky users all this bla bla is worthless.
I would agree with your statement that “all social medias of that scale did that” except that bluesky is decentralized, and the way ATproto works means that you can migrate off of them without their consent, basically.
The current leadership seems dedicated to making it good, and I somewhat trust that’s not just pr shit because they have done stuff like moderation lists that are cool, but not at all necessary for advertising decentralization. They were also very upfront about the flaws their federation had.
If you want to go “oh they’re vc funded”, well, so is framework, and people love them.
I get your main argument is that bsky is the only mainstream instance, but that’s just for now. Enshittifying a company like bluesky takes a while, and by then other viable platforms will exist.
Well, you completely ignored all my arguments except the one you could find issue with.
Yes, it’s concentrated on one instance, but that will change before it enshittifies.
You can migrate accounts.
You keep linking back to that page not understanding that that concentration is a result of it being first built up as a centralized platform, then opened to other instances. There has not been enough time for other instances to pop up.
By that same logic according to that page git isn’t decentralized and nobody should use it, because microsoft owns an instance with >90% of the users.
BlueSky is centralized. It is centralized because all the users are in a single place. That’s what the word centralized means, and no amount of wishes and buts can change that.
Thank you for bringing some sanity in this thread. I’ve been trying to correct people but I feel like I’m arguing with LLMs created to perpetuate an illusion of “debate”.
alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 07 Sep 18:27
nextcollapse
There is a difference between providing services to fund development and “We take VC capital now and try to make it profitable later”, which just invites enshittification.
Also Matrix is much better federated than BS + everything is open and was so for a long time
Slightly better you mean. 30% is on matrix.org and an estimated 70% runs on servers provided by EMS (this figure includes matrix.org).
And Matrix is also VC funded. They have some other income yes, but it is insufficient to fund many of their current activities. As a result enshittification is already happening.
Matrix is basically the Bluesky of chat. If you want an Fediverse equivalent have a look at XMPP/Jabber.
They’re not, to my knowledge, but also, to my knowledge, they have no plan for profitability. They’re a domain registrar and they sell merch but there’s no way that’s paying for all that infra for 12M users.
What does that enable? Could people in states blocked by the main network use it through these?
airportline@lemmy.zip
on 07 Sep 23:32
nextcollapse
Could people in states blocked by the main network use it through these?
Yes, and they wouldn’t even need to migrate their accounts to do so (although they probably should).
irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 08 Sep 17:12
collapse
People with bsky.social accounts can evade the bans by using: deer.social, zeppelin.social and blacksky.community, without even having to migrate their accounts.
I want all my greens on Mastodon instead of Bluesky.
lavember@programming.dev
on 07 Sep 18:19
nextcollapse
Thats the article? What? Its just a big nothing burger
Corgana@startrek.website
on 07 Sep 19:03
nextcollapse
I haven’t seen much arguing, it is unquestionably centralized and for profit. There truly is nothing unique about it.
I’m not an expert with the AT protocol but it really seems like what Dorsey and co have made is a super complicated protocol that (under specific conditions that cannot exist in the real world), has the potential to be federated in a meaningful way. That way they can steal all the talking points of the fediverse and muddy the meaning of words.
There are also a lot of people on Fedi who will seek out threads like these to explain how line 2532 of the AT protocol handbook explains how having 100% of users on a single server is actually decentralized but I’m sure they’re all authentic accounts.
"super complicated" it's really not, just nobody on the Fediverse wants to spend 2 seconds looking into it to realize it's pros and cons over the Fediverse.
"steal all the talking points of the fediverse" you sound hostile af
its not hostile to suggest that the crypto bros running bluesky would openwash their true intentions
irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 08 Sep 17:10
collapse
Hey, the at protocol is pretty simple really.
Essentially, the network has three main parts:
PDSes: These are “dumb” data stores. The do not do anything except store data and handle authentication. Your account “lives” on them, but you can migrate between them seamlessly, and keep your data when you migrate.
Relays: These connect to PDSes over websocket and store all the data from them. They provide a “firehose” of data through websockets. The advantage of relays is that there is far less missing information than on the fediverse.
AppViews: These connect to relays and take the posts. They sort through the data and only keep what is relevant for them.
For example, bsky.app is an appview. It connects to the bolson.bsky.dev relay, and only takes objects that have an app.bsky.* nsid/type. frontpage.fyi is another one, it connects to the relay1.us-west.bsky.network relay, it ignores all posts that except for ones with fyi.frontpage.* nsids, and that are too long.
This approach is way better than activitypub.
Relays aren’t necessary, nor expensive to run (anymore). For example, appviewlite can be run easily, and can be configured to crawl PDSes itself, rather than using a relay.
It has the potential to be federated in a meaningful way in the real world right now.
I’m not going to deny that most people using bluesky’s servers is a problem, because it is.
Jack Dorsey wasn’t very involved in bluesky, and isn’t involved at all anymore. He left the board and deleted his account after they did moderation.
Bluesky, right now, is federated in a meaningful way. Whether or not it’s decentralised only depends on your definition of the word at this point.
Also: the people who work at bluesky, right now, have very good intentions. I don’t really think any are crypto-bros. The main problem is investors trying to claw back some value after they invested in it.
Yes, as soon as 99%+ of the users aren’t on the same server. That’s the bottom line. We can argue theory all day but it doesn’t change the implications of centralization.
Over the last few weeks hundreds of people have moved their accounts to the new blacksky.app PDS, and they’re running an early version of their app at blacksky.community
I’ve spent…quite a bit of time intentionally looking for alternative ATP servers and this is the first time I’ve heard of this. And I’m balls deep in this stuff. I even run my own AP server. So I’d say it’s so obscure as to be meaningless.
99.99% of the users are still on infrastructure run by Bluesky PBC…but looking at all the progress and activity, it sure seems to me that’s in the process of changing.
My guy. LOL. No. Just no. It isn’t.
so many people in the Fediverse present the fact that 99.99% of Bluesky users are still using infrastructrure run by Bluesky PBC as if it’s a gotcha
I mean…yeah? It is.
They just prefer to invest their time and energy in working to improve the situation
And we prefer to invest our time and energy into supporting an actually decentralized protocol.
rather than arguing about the semantics of “decentralization.”
Die4Ever@retrolemmy.com
on 07 Sep 20:44
nextcollapse
Well 25% is very strict, pretty sure mastodon.social is more than that for the Fediverse (I do wish other instances would grow faster to catch up)
But yea anything higher than 50% is kinda missing the point, ideally they would close signups and suggest people signup on alternative instances instead
irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 08 Sep 16:52
collapse
Alternate ATP servers:
altq.net: PDS
app.wafrn.net: pds and appview
atproto.africa: alt relay
zeppelin.social: alt appview
blacksky.app: alternate PDS
blacksky.community: alternate appview
witchcraft.systems: alt pds
sprk.so: alt pds, plans on hosting an appview
gander.socialgandersocial.ca : canadian PDS, appview in plans
arankwende.com: open-signup PDS
atproto.hotwaru.com: open-signup PDS
bsky.aenead.net: open-signup PDS
casjay.social: open-signup PDs
deer.social: alt-client
Honourable mention to AppViewLite which lets you easily and cheaply host an appview yourself. I can run it on my laptop easily. It doesn’t depend on relays, it can crawls PDSes directly.
can anyone recommend a good read into the actual developments happening with ATproto as of late? i've seen a lot of insisting lately that things are changing/have changed but no one's saying what exactly is or has changed
The most interesting development as of late is the progress of Blacksky. It is the first major attempt at creating an independent “Bluesky Instance”–where in that it’s functionally the same as Bluesky but doesn’t rely on any of Bluesky’s infrastructure.
There is also Wafrn, which is really hard to explain. @gabboman@app.wafrn.net is in this thread somewhere and will have to explain it.
Not really that hard to explain, unless I'm missing your point. Wafrn is a federated Tumblr-like platform that allows two-way interaction with Bluesky users (without the need for bridging).
There’s way more to Wafrn than that, and it’s extremely interesting.
You can treat Wafrn like an independent ATProto platform (like Blacksky). It has its own PDS and AppView (which uses Blacksky’s Relay), so it’s not at all dependent on Bluesky for obtaining posts (assuming those posts are also published on an independent PDS).
What’s unique is that Wafrn is actually ActivityPub-first, meaning it doesn’t have any issue interacting with Mastodon users, but doesn’t have all the same features of a normal ATProto platform. For example must have your account on Wafrn in order to use it (as opposed to blacksky.community, which lets you sign in with an existing account on another ATProto platform); you can, however, sign into bsky.app (or blacksky) with an account created on Wafrn.
unknown1234_5@kbin.earth
on 07 Sep 22:03
nextcollapse
bluesky is technically decentralized, but the way it does it makes self-hosting all but impossible due to storage requirements. because of that, it really isnt. its like how a lot of ai models are 'open-source' even though the training data isnt available and the ai is still effectively a black box. it isnt decentralized unless anyone can make an instance, just like how it isnt open-source unless you have access to everything that makes it work (yes, by this definition chromium and android aren't truly open-source, and I stand by that).
this is literally the exact same for the fediverse. it is near impossible to own your data. if you want to own your data, you have to own others' data, and you're practically isolated in a black box unless you spam hashtags and spam follow people.
big instances still have a massive control over the entirety of the fediverse for whatever category (e.g. micro-blogging) they are in
but can I use a random old computer I have in my house to run an instance as long as there are a managable number of users? renting a server isnt self hosting. making one yourself is self hosting.
irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 10 Sep 12:38
nextcollapse
Yes, you can.
You can easily run a PDS, that’s the main public-facing part, you’d need port forwarding and a domain name for this.
Appviews are easier to host imo, github.com/alnkesq/AppViewLite is what I use. You can run this on a PC right now, and log in with your bluesky account.
thats not a whole instance though. thats just a place for an account to be. on activity pub platforms anyone can just make an entire indepent and independently functional instance of the platform.
gabboman@app.wafrn.net
on 11 Sep 13:06
nextcollapse
I’ve been using deer.social recently, it’s okay. I’m not that big on microblogging, but it works alright.
irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 11 Sep 13:28
nextcollapse
???
The PDS and the Appview combined are equivalent to an instance. Both run on shitware.
palladiumasteroid@app.wafrn.net
on 11 Sep 13:38
collapse
The thing is, there are no instances in ATProto. Instances are an ActivityPub thing.
There are PDS + Appviews + relays. All three aspects are self-hostable and can be combined in any way. The appview you use is not limited by your PDS (while in AP the type of instance you run very much limits the number of fronteds and clients you can use), nor is your relay.
A person could selfhost their own pds, use the blacksky relay and the deer.social appview, to give an example.
irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 11 Sep 16:52
collapse
Also: you can easily self host an appview (check appviewlite), and you can set it to crawl PDSes directly, instead of using a relay.
lol exactly how many whataboutisms do you have to do to earn your btc?
In case anyone else is reading this, Matrix is an encrypted messaging protocol developed by a nonprofit. So by attempting to compare that to a for profit social media company, /u/gabboman is trying to sidestep the reason why decentralization is important in social media apps.
Maybe just because he has a software project that interacts with bluesky in a decentralised way so he knows it's possible? Just because someone disagrees or, in this case, wants to see the same standards applied to other platforms doesn't mean they're a paid actor here to disrupt the peace or something.
More likely it the account is behaving in an inauthentic way. It’s possible for Twitter to decentralize one day too, that doesn’t make it real, likely, or feasible. It would be just as strange for someone to openwash Twitter.
except that bluesky already theoretically is, the numbers you quoted just show that most people are tied to one server stack meaning it's effectively centralised. Thus the question on how decentralised Matrix is.
Because bsky has tons of users, and the ATmosphere is only recently “truly” decentralized. You can argue it is federated, but centralized, but acting as if it’s not decentralized/federated at all is stupid.
and the ATmosphere is only recently “truly” decentralized
It’s absolutely not. There is no situation in which 99.999% of users on a single for profit platform can be accurately called decentralized.
Similarly, “federated” means jack shit when the only thing the for profit bluesky company is federated with are two micro-instances that are fully reliant on the for profit Bluesky company.
How are they completely reliant of the bluesky company?
If bluesky shut down tommorow they would still work, and while bluesky is currently the majority of users, it won’t be forever. If you give it a bit of time, other instances with many users will pop up.
Like, my whole argument is that you can’t write off a actually decentralized platform completely just because it’s currently centered on one large instance.
This is not a matter of agreement. There is hard evidence that bluesky is for profit and that its users are centralized. If you want to convince me otherwise you will need to provide evidence instead of repeating the company talking points.
More importantly it’s for-profit capitalist crap? With ethical and moral considerations, there is no reason to push this when there are alternatives with much better starting blocks.
theacharnian@lemmy.ca
on 08 Sep 12:35
nextcollapse
Centralization on its own is not a deal breaker. Wikipedia is centralized.
Corporate/business ownership on it’s own is not a deal breaker. There are many business mastodon instances: mastodonservers.net/servers/business
It’s the combination that is a deal breaker. Corporate AND centralized. We’ve seen this movie before. It’s a predictably boring story that ends with enshittification.
Agreeish? (M)any one of us can download wikipedia. Does that still make it centralized when it is designed to be distributed that easily? That design choice is baked into the ethos. Centralized vs. Decentralized seems not to be binary.
theacharnian@lemmy.ca
on 08 Sep 13:42
nextcollapse
But once you download It, any changes you make are only local. You cannot edit wikipedia using a non-wikipedia account (sure you can edit anonymously but then your IP functions as your account) and the articles are not systematically stored in different wikipedia instances. There is one Wikipedia.
By the way, centralized doesn’t mean “walled off”.
Once you download wikipedia, you can edit it and distribute. Other people with their own copies can merge your changes into theirs, or you can push your changes upstream. Even if they need to be signed to accepted. Doesn’t that make Wikipedia more like the Linux Kernel and less like The Encyclopedia Britannica? Sure, for the kernel there is a “main and central” repo, but the whole point of git is that it isn’t centralized. It’s distributed.
In fact, in a loose way, wikipedia meets the criteria of Free Software. You can:
Read the source code
Modify the source code
Distribute the source code
Distribute your modifications to the source code
edit: wikipedia is predominately licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)
Sure but I don’t think that makes it “decentralized” it makes it as you correctly point out, open source. Those are orthogonal categories.There aren’t parts of wikipedia that are hosted in other wikipedia instances that talk to each other the same way mastodon does. There is a unique, central, Wikipedia.
irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 08 Sep 16:41
collapse
You can download all of bluesky easily through the firehose, and it is federated.
Kirk@startrek.website
on 08 Sep 16:14
nextcollapse
I agree with your overall point, but Wikipedia has a singular mission. Social settings can have wildy different missions from shitposting, to hobbies, study groups, to support groups, etc. There is no singular moderation ethos that can apply to all of them, that’s why decentralization is important in social media.
We want to algorithms to work for the people, not have people slaving for the algorithms.
Of course I agree that decentralization for social media is hugely important. I’m just pointing out that there can exist use cases where centralization makes sense and/or is not a problem.
Absolutely I was not trying to take away from your point! Cory Doctorow actually recently wrote a good piece on Wikipedia that you reminded me of.
irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 08 Sep 16:40
nextcollapse
Luckily, there’s non-corporate bluesky servers that I can use instead of the main one.
ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 09 Sep 15:31
collapse
well bluesky is not owned by a normal corporation, but i’d say the problem is it’s supposed to be decentralized, that’s it’s entire point and purpose….
so if it’s not, then that’s problematic….
it’s still fairly new so maybe they want everything perfect before they start federating?
the split between Ruby version 1.8 and 1.9 was huge and seriously hindered it’s growth….
i have hope for Bluesky and the AT protocol… but not a ton of hope.
littleguy@lemmy.cif.su
on 08 Sep 12:37
nextcollapse
No.
The distinction is important, and every useful idiot pivoting from one corporate platform to another should be educated on their mistake.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
on 08 Sep 14:28
nextcollapse
Who cares. It’s inherently a shit platform like Twitter. No one cares about your pithy half sentences.
I didn’t even realize that decentralization was a selling point for Bluesky. I genuinely thought it was just Twitter but not run by Elon Musk
airportline@lemmy.zip
on 09 Sep 23:01
nextcollapse
That is by design. From a user’s perspective, the only indication that Bluesky is decentralizedfederated is the option to select a different “hosting provider” when logging in.
You are correct. The term is called “openwashing”. Now and then bluesky employees cultists will come on Lemmy and mastodon and try to LARP that their for-profit company has our best interests in mind.
threaded - newest
Author: points out how Bluesky is not decentralized.
Also Author: only points out how people are arguing about how Bluesky is decentralized.
Author: Mission Accomplished.
Since we have Mississippi as an example... Why not just look how it turned out for the people there? Do or don't they have a communications platform now that connects them to a network of other people? I feel that's way more helpful than discussing what should be discussed, or talking about theoretical details.
If they use deer.social or zeppelin.social (alternate bluesky instances), they can evade the bans and blocks.
Ah, thanks. And are those people then connected to the same network and can follow each other, or are those entirely seperate? Pardon my lack of knowledge about Bluesky and ATProto.
Bluesky’s network has 2 main layers, the PDS layer, and the appview layer.
Everyone’s PDS stores their posts, likes and account, and handles authentication.
It doesn’t do anything else. an appview gathers posts from PDSes, and indexes and sorts them (for feeds and notifications).
AppViews all share the same posts, so they’re in the same network.
I will continue to point it out as long as people keep recommending it. Its not a minor complaint or a small point of disagreement, its a complete deal breaker that makes the platform worthless to invest any time in. No matter how much time passes it will always be a shit platform as long as its centralized.
Also bluesky isnt part of the fediverse so this doesnt even really belong in here…
There are four other posts about Bluesky or ATProto on the front page of !fediverse@lemmy.world (when viewed from lemmy.zip), so I guessed otherwise.
I think the sidebar clarifies it pretty well
Yeah and “but other people are doing it” is not a valid excuse lol
That is exactly what I meant, just because other people are doing it too, it doesn’t stop you from reading the sidebar
it's not centralized
go to https://reddwarf.whey.party and all requests will be made to Constellation (a hobby project which tracks backlinks of records, which is completely independent of Bluesky PBC), the PDSes directly, and Bluesky's CDN (which is negligible since a CDN can be an easy replacement on a small scale)
99.99% of users on bluesky.social = centralized no matter what cute little toys people built on the side
Yes, but that can (and probably will) change, especially if people start using instances like those soon.
No it wont. And you know it wont. People chose bluesky because of its centralized nature, not despite it.
No, they chose bsky because it works well and is an alternative to twitter, idk why anyone would choose againsy a decentralised platform.
Its works well for normies because it is centralized. Every time you see non nerds discuss the lack of widespread fediverse adoption the main reason is “picking a server is intimidating”. 90% of bluesky users (probably more) have never heard of the fediverse or know what “decentralized” even means. They picked it because it was easy and because the centralized moderation seemed more trustworthy than the one on twitter.
Literally the whole point of bluesky is to try to make a platform that is decentralized and that people will flock to even if they’re normies. To catch the twitter wave they did the second part before the first. Eventually other companies will pop up that use ATproto and normies will grow to understand that they’re federated.
Keep dreaming then. Like damn some people just want to believe the most unrealistic stuff.
So far we have a 100% enshittification rate of all social media platforms of this scale. They all started out supposedly open, free speech focused and hackable and they all fell to greed. There is absolutely nothing stopping bluesky from saying “hmm look at those 40 millions users we have locked into our walled garden, lets extract money from them” and there is nothing you would be able to do about it.
Until the main server accounts for <30% of all bluesky users all this bla bla is worthless.
?
I would agree with your statement that “all social medias of that scale did that” except that bluesky is decentralized, and the way ATproto works means that you can migrate off of them without their consent, basically.
The current leadership seems dedicated to making it good, and I somewhat trust that’s not just pr shit because they have done stuff like moderation lists that are cool, but not at all necessary for advertising decentralization. They were also very upfront about the flaws their federation had.
Also, it’s a public benefits corporation, and all their stuff is open source.
If you want to go “oh they’re vc funded”, well, so is framework, and people love them.
I get your main argument is that bsky is the only mainstream instance, but that’s just for now. Enshittifying a company like bluesky takes a while, and by then other viable platforms will exist.
Bluesky is not decentralized.
A meaningless term. Elon’s xAI is a public benefit corporation and their product spreads Nazi propoganda.
Well, you completely ignored all my arguments except the one you could find issue with.
Yes, it’s concentrated on one instance, but that will change before it enshittifies.
You can migrate accounts.
You keep linking back to that page not understanding that that concentration is a result of it being first built up as a centralized platform, then opened to other instances. There has not been enough time for other instances to pop up.
By that same logic according to that page git isn’t decentralized and nobody should use it, because microsoft owns an instance with >90% of the users.
I hope you can see the flaw in that logic.
BlueSky is currently centralized, and a for profit company.
…except it isn’t centralized, since anyone can host their own instance that doesnt depend on bsky.social
blackskyweb.xyz as an example
Your example is statistically irrelevant arewedecentralizedyet.online
BlueSky at present is a for profit centralized platform that users cannot meaningfully leave
The Blacksky page has a “Migration” link in the sidebar: tektite.cc
On blacksky.community/starter-pack/…/3kvubqmzzi32t
Your example is statistically irrelevant arewedecentralizedyet.online
BlueSky is centralized. It is centralized because all the users are in a single place. That’s what the word centralized means, and no amount of wishes and buts can change that.
Then what is blackskyweb.xyz
That’s 0.0001% of ATprotocol users arewedecentralizedyet.online
Except they literally aren’t, there are many users that aren’t on that “single place”
BlueSky is centralized and for profit arewedecentralizedyet.online
Thank you for bringing some sanity in this thread. I’ve been trying to correct people but I feel like I’m arguing with LLMs created to perpetuate an illusion of “debate”.
I have no idea what this means or what Bluesky is, so yes. I’m happy to continue not knowing or talking about it.
If you don’t want to hear any criticism, stop bringing up pseudo-decentralized corpo VC-backed Twitter 2.0
:3
what about matrix , they also do business
There is a difference between providing services to fund development and “We take VC capital now and try to make it profitable later”, which just invites enshittification.
Also Matrix is much better federated than BS + everything is open and was so for a long time
Slightly better you mean. 30% is on matrix.org and an estimated 70% runs on servers provided by EMS (this figure includes matrix.org).
And Matrix is also VC funded. They have some other income yes, but it is insufficient to fund many of their current activities. As a result enshittification is already happening.
Matrix is basically the Bluesky of chat. If you want an Fediverse equivalent have a look at XMPP/Jabber.
Matrix.org is VC funded (which is why it will go freemium soon AFAIK) and not 99% is on Matrix.org as you mentioned
I can freely and easily federate with any other homeserver to matrix.org
I can freely and easily federate with *.bsky.network and bsky.app.
Don’t let them distract with with the “whattabout matrix”. The Matrix Foundation is not a social media company, and furthermore it’s a nonprofit.
Matrix has a profitable business model that doesn’t involve exploiting users. BlueSky doesn’t.
may I ask how users are being exploited at this current moment?
They’re not, to my knowledge, but also, to my knowledge, they have no plan for profitability. They’re a domain registrar and they sell merch but there’s no way that’s paying for all that infra for 12M users.
They’re planning on offering a subscription at some point that will basically just be discord nitro.
Uh-huh, and we see how that turned out…
there is blacksky and others which are making app for atprotocol soo its decentralized
What does that enable? Could people in states blocked by the main network use it through these?
Yes, and they wouldn’t even need to migrate their accounts to do so (although they probably should).
People with bsky.social accounts can evade the bans by using: deer.social, zeppelin.social and blacksky.community, without even having to migrate their accounts.
I want all my greens on Mastodon instead of Bluesky.
Thats the article? What? Its just a big nothing burger
I haven’t seen much arguing, it is unquestionably centralized and for profit. There truly is nothing unique about it.
I’m not an expert with the AT protocol but it really seems like what Dorsey and co have made is a super complicated protocol that (under specific conditions that cannot exist in the real world), has the potential to be federated in a meaningful way. That way they can steal all the talking points of the fediverse and muddy the meaning of words.
There are also a lot of people on Fedi who will seek out threads like these to explain how line 2532 of the AT protocol handbook explains how having 100% of users on a single server is actually decentralized but I’m sure they’re all authentic accounts.
its not hostile to suggest that the crypto bros running bluesky would openwash their true intentions
Hey, the at protocol is pretty simple really.
Essentially, the network has three main parts:
For example, bsky.app is an appview. It connects to the bolson.bsky.dev relay, and only takes objects that have an
app.bsky.*nsid/type. frontpage.fyi is another one, it connects to the relay1.us-west.bsky.network relay, it ignores all posts that except for ones withfyi.frontpage.*nsids, and that are too long.This approach is way better than activitypub.
Relays aren’t necessary, nor expensive to run (anymore). For example, appviewlite can be run easily, and can be configured to crawl PDSes itself, rather than using a relay.
The cost in running relays has also dropped. It’s roughly $34 a month. Read this article by a bluesky dev: whtwnd.com/bnewbold.net/3kwzl7tye6u2y.
It has the potential to be federated in a meaningful way in the real world right now.
I’m not going to deny that most people using bluesky’s servers is a problem, because it is.
Jack Dorsey wasn’t very involved in bluesky, and isn’t involved at all anymore. He left the board and deleted his account after they did moderation.
Bluesky, right now, is federated in a meaningful way. Whether or not it’s decentralised only depends on your definition of the word at this point.
Also: the people who work at bluesky, right now, have very good intentions. I don’t really think any are crypto-bros. The main problem is investors trying to claw back some value after they invested in it.
Is anyone arguing at this point?
It’s not decentralized. There’s no argument.
I’ve seen people arguing. On Mastodon, weirdly enough.
It is decentralised.
Check: blacksky.community, atproto.africa, altq.net, app.wafrn.net and zeppelin.social.
Bluesky is not decentralized.
Yes, as soon as 99%+ of the users aren’t on the same server. That’s the bottom line. We can argue theory all day but it doesn’t change the implications of centralization.
I’ve spent…quite a bit of time intentionally looking for alternative ATP servers and this is the first time I’ve heard of this. And I’m balls deep in this stuff. I even run my own AP server. So I’d say it’s so obscure as to be meaningless.
My guy. LOL. No. Just no. It isn’t.
I mean…yeah? It is.
And we prefer to invest our time and energy into supporting an actually decentralized protocol.
At what point was anyone arguing semantics?
Yes, please, go ahead.
99% isn’t the threshold. I’d say like 25% or less
Well 25% is very strict, pretty sure mastodon.social is more than that for the Fediverse (I do wish other instances would grow faster to catch up)
But yea anything higher than 50% is kinda missing the point, ideally they would close signups and suggest people signup on alternative instances instead
Majority share is too powerful
join-lemmy.org actually hides any instance that’s over 30% of Lemmy github.com/LemmyNet/…/instances.tsx#L451-L456
Is that what you would actually expect Bluesky to do if they were committed to decentralization?
I said “ideally”, but they probably would’ve done a lot of things differently if they were committed to decentralization
Bluesky traded good user distribution for growth.
Doesn’t LW control ~30% of the lemmyverse?
Lemmyverse != threadiverse
It controls ~30% of the threadiverse, then.
Where is that number coming from?
My head. Lemmy.world has 15,000 (roughly) monthly active users, the threadiverse has roughly 60,000 active users,
So 25%
Alternate ATP servers:
gander.socialgandersocial.ca : canadian PDS, appview in plansHonourable mention to AppViewLite which lets you easily and cheaply host an appview yourself. I can run it on my laptop easily. It doesn’t depend on relays, it can crawls PDSes directly.
Plus the many other instances here: github.com/mary-ext/atproto-scraping
Thanks!
Cmo, what so bad with
furrysky…BLUE! I mean Bluesky 😰.
I kinda wonder… Is Bluesky’s creator(s) furry? 🤔
The furry community was pushing to switch to it from other platforms almost as soon as the site started up.
can anyone recommend a good read into the actual developments happening with ATproto as of late? i've seen a lot of insisting lately that things are changing/have changed but no one's saying what exactly is or has changed
Fediverse Reports regularly talks about updates with ATProto, and I found this blog post mentioned in another blog post from WeDistribute.
The most interesting development as of late is the progress of Blacksky. It is the first major attempt at creating an independent “Bluesky Instance”–where in that it’s functionally the same as Bluesky but doesn’t rely on any of Bluesky’s infrastructure.
There is also Wafrn, which is really hard to explain. @gabboman@app.wafrn.net is in this thread somewhere and will have to explain it.
thank you!
Not really that hard to explain, unless I'm missing your point. Wafrn is a federated Tumblr-like platform that allows two-way interaction with Bluesky users (without the need for bridging).
There’s way more to Wafrn than that, and it’s extremely interesting.
You can treat Wafrn like an independent ATProto platform (like Blacksky). It has its own PDS and AppView (which uses Blacksky’s Relay), so it’s not at all dependent on Bluesky for obtaining posts (assuming those posts are also published on an independent PDS).
What’s unique is that Wafrn is actually ActivityPub-first, meaning it doesn’t have any issue interacting with Mastodon users, but doesn’t have all the same features of a normal ATProto platform. For example must have your account on Wafrn in order to use it (as opposed to blacksky.community, which lets you sign in with an existing account on another ATProto platform); you can, however, sign into bsky.app (or blacksky) with an account created on Wafrn.
bluesky is technically decentralized, but the way it does it makes self-hosting all but impossible due to storage requirements. because of that, it really isnt. its like how a lot of ai models are 'open-source' even though the training data isnt available and the ai is still effectively a black box. it isnt decentralized unless anyone can make an instance, just like how it isnt open-source unless you have access to everything that makes it work (yes, by this definition chromium and android aren't truly open-source, and I stand by that).
this is literally the exact same for the fediverse. it is near impossible to own your data. if you want to own your data, you have to own others' data, and you're practically isolated in a black box unless you spam hashtags and spam follow people.
big instances still have a massive control over the entirety of the fediverse for whatever category (e.g. micro-blogging) they are in
but I could still easily make my own instance and be outside of that influence.
app.wafrn.net. Alt-atproto server, outside of bluesky’s control.
The storage requirements aren’t an issue anymore.
You can self host everything for around ~$34 a month.
@gabboman@app.wafrn.net runs an alternate bluesky instance (kinda) and he’s not bankrupt yet. Hell, it was on a free oracle server for a while.
but can I use a random old computer I have in my house to run an instance as long as there are a managable number of users? renting a server isnt self hosting. making one yourself is self hosting.
Yes, you can.
You can easily run a PDS, that’s the main public-facing part, you’d need port forwarding and a domain name for this.
Appviews are easier to host imo, github.com/alnkesq/AppViewLite is what I use. You can run this on a PC right now, and log in with your bluesky account.
thats not a whole instance though. thats just a place for an account to be. on activity pub platforms anyone can just make an entire indepent and independently functional instance of the platform.
Have you even looked at wafrn
Doesn’t seem like they did. Sorry for all the negativity you are facing in this thread, thank you for your work on wafrn.
Its ok no worries
Fedi people looses it with atproto
I’ve been using deer.social recently, it’s okay. I’m not that big on microblogging, but it works alright.
???
The PDS and the Appview combined are equivalent to an instance. Both run on shitware.
The thing is, there are no instances in ATProto. Instances are an ActivityPub thing.
There are PDS + Appviews + relays. All three aspects are self-hostable and can be combined in any way. The appview you use is not limited by your PDS (while in AP the type of instance you run very much limits the number of fronteds and clients you can use), nor is your relay.
A person could selfhost their own pds, use the blacksky relay and the deer.social appview, to give an example.
Also: you can easily self host an appview (check appviewlite), and you can set it to crawl PDSes directly, instead of using a relay.
No, you can’t. You can have a custom domain (“PDS” is the term they invented for this) but it still relies on bluesky’s servers.
There is no argument. It’s centralised.
Explain blacksky and wafrn
Don't waste your time on a feddit.uk user.
what is your instance
Their instance is app.wafrn.net ;)
Jokes aside, wafrn is a cool tumblr-like fediverse service. It has bluesky support, so it acts as another instance of bluesky.
Interesting. How well does it work?
It works extremely well, I can follow bluesky users and interact with them as if they were on the fediverse.
Classic whattaboutism from bluesky cultists:
arewedecentralizedyet.online
Please continue to deflect and avoid the topic.
is matrix decentralized?
lol exactly how many whataboutisms do you have to do to earn your btc?
In case anyone else is reading this, Matrix is an encrypted messaging protocol developed by a nonprofit. So by attempting to compare that to a for profit social media company, /u/gabboman is trying to sidestep the reason why decentralization is important in social media apps.
… what?
you're a paid actor paid by jack dorsey to promote bluesky. that's obviously the best explanation to why you're invested in this
CC: @Kirk@startrek.website
why else would someone behave in such a shameful and embarassing manner
Maybe just because he has a software project that interacts with bluesky in a decentralised way so he knows it's possible? Just because someone disagrees or, in this case, wants to see the same standards applied to other platforms doesn't mean they're a paid actor here to disrupt the peace or something.
More likely it the account is behaving in an inauthentic way. It’s possible for Twitter to decentralize one day too, that doesn’t make it real, likely, or feasible. It would be just as strange for someone to openwash Twitter.
except that bluesky already theoretically is, the numbers you quoted just show that most people are tied to one server stack meaning it's effectively centralised. Thus the question on how decentralised Matrix is.
“already theoretically is” is a hilarious way to avoid saying “isn’t”.
Because bsky has tons of users, and the ATmosphere is only recently “truly” decentralized. You can argue it is federated, but centralized, but acting as if it’s not decentralized/federated at all is stupid.
It’s absolutely not. There is no situation in which 99.999% of users on a single for profit platform can be accurately called decentralized.
Similarly, “federated” means jack shit when the only thing the for profit bluesky company is federated with are two micro-instances that are fully reliant on the for profit Bluesky company.
How are they completely reliant of the bluesky company?
If bluesky shut down tommorow they would still work, and while bluesky is currently the majority of users, it won’t be forever. If you give it a bit of time, other instances with many users will pop up.
Like, my whole argument is that you can’t write off a actually decentralized platform completely just because it’s currently centered on one large instance.
You are not behaving rationally.
Okay I think we disagree on semantics.
I think decentralized = anyone can set up their own instance that doesn’t depend on any other instance.
This is not a disagreement of semantics. You are attempting to redefine a word. You’ll never find a dictionary that uses your definition.
Okay, then what does it mean? What possible other definition could that word have, please be specific.
You are now attempting to sealion to avoid addressing the topic directly.
Evidence that BlueSky’s users are centralized on a single instance: arewedecentralizedyet.online
Evidence that the word “centralized” means “cluster around a center”: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/centralize
I’m glad we agree! It’s decentralized :)
Notice how that website you love linking shows 98%, not 100%
This is not a matter of agreement. There is hard evidence that bluesky is for profit and that its users are centralized. If you want to convince me otherwise you will need to provide evidence instead of repeating the company talking points.
BlueSky is centralized and for profit arewedecentralizedyet.online
Alright, you will never ever consider for a second you may be wrong, because you think anyone who disagrees with you is either a shill or an agent.
Goodbye, and have a good day
There is hard evidence that BlueSky’s users are centralized on a single instance. Here it is again: arewedecentralizedyet.online
There is hard evidence that the word “centralized” means “cluster around a center” here is that evidence: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/centralize
There is hard evidence that bluesky is for profit company: bsky.social/about/blog/2-7-2022-overview
Your repeating of easily disprovable falsehoods will not make them true. BlueSky is centralized and for profit.
Pixelfed has 112k monthly active users, 89k being on a single instance
Does this make Pixelfed centralized ?
How many whatabboutisms do you guys have to do each day to earn your btc? Bluesky is centralized and for profit.
lemmy.zip/post/48357775/21408588
Where does Bluesky intervene in that sign up and usage process?
How many whatabboutisms do you guys have to do each day to earn your btc?
There is hard evidence that BlueSky’s users are centralized on a single instance: arewedecentralizedyet.online
There is hard evidence that the word “centralized” means “cluster around a center”: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/centralize
There is hard evidence that bluesky is for profit company: bsky.social/about/blog/2-7-2022-overview
Bluesky is centralized and for profit.
.
More importantly it’s for-profit capitalist crap? With ethical and moral considerations, there is no reason to push this when there are alternatives with much better starting blocks.
It’s a benefit corporation which means the board has to consider the benefit to society, employees, etc.
Capitalism is not bad
Centralization on its own is not a deal breaker. Wikipedia is centralized.
Corporate/business ownership on it’s own is not a deal breaker. There are many business mastodon instances: mastodonservers.net/servers/business
It’s the combination that is a deal breaker. Corporate AND centralized. We’ve seen this movie before. It’s a predictably boring story that ends with enshittification.
Agreeish? (M)any one of us can download wikipedia. Does that still make it centralized when it is designed to be distributed that easily? That design choice is baked into the ethos. Centralized vs. Decentralized seems not to be binary.
But once you download It, any changes you make are only local. You cannot edit wikipedia using a non-wikipedia account (sure you can edit anonymously but then your IP functions as your account) and the articles are not systematically stored in different wikipedia instances. There is one Wikipedia.
By the way, centralized doesn’t mean “walled off”.
Once you download wikipedia, you can edit it and distribute. Other people with their own copies can merge your changes into theirs, or you can push your changes upstream. Even if they need to be signed to accepted. Doesn’t that make Wikipedia more like the Linux Kernel and less like The Encyclopedia Britannica? Sure, for the kernel there is a “main and central” repo, but the whole point of git is that it isn’t centralized. It’s distributed.
In fact, in a loose way, wikipedia meets the criteria of Free Software. You can:
edit: wikipedia is predominately licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)
Sure but I don’t think that makes it “decentralized” it makes it as you correctly point out, open source. Those are orthogonal categories.There aren’t parts of wikipedia that are hosted in other wikipedia instances that talk to each other the same way mastodon does. There is a unique, central, Wikipedia.
You can download all of bluesky easily through the firehose, and it is federated.
I agree with your overall point, but Wikipedia has a singular mission. Social settings can have wildy different missions from shitposting, to hobbies, study groups, to support groups, etc. There is no singular moderation ethos that can apply to all of them, that’s why decentralization is important in social media.
We want to algorithms to work for the people, not have people slaving for the algorithms.
Of course I agree that decentralization for social media is hugely important. I’m just pointing out that there can exist use cases where centralization makes sense and/or is not a problem.
Absolutely I was not trying to take away from your point! Cory Doctorow actually recently wrote a good piece on Wikipedia that you reminded me of.
Luckily, there’s non-corporate bluesky servers that I can use instead of the main one.
well bluesky is not owned by a normal corporation, but i’d say the problem is it’s supposed to be decentralized, that’s it’s entire point and purpose….
so if it’s not, then that’s problematic….
it’s still fairly new so maybe they want everything perfect before they start federating?
the split between Ruby version 1.8 and 1.9 was huge and seriously hindered it’s growth….
i have hope for Bluesky and the AT protocol… but not a ton of hope.
No.
The distinction is important, and every useful idiot pivoting from one corporate platform to another should be educated on their mistake.
Who cares. It’s inherently a shit platform like Twitter. No one cares about your pithy half sentences.
I didn’t even realize that decentralization was a selling point for Bluesky. I genuinely thought it was just Twitter but not run by Elon Musk
That is by design. From a user’s perspective, the only indication that Bluesky is
decentralizedfederated is the option to select a different “hosting provider” when logging in.You are correct. The term is called “openwashing”. Now and then bluesky
employeescultists will come on Lemmy and mastodon and try to LARP that their for-profit company has our best interests in mind.