How applicable the concepts of decentralisation and federation are to the ATmosphere is debatable, but they are used as an approximation for the core question: how is power distributed in the network? And Bluesky and the ATmosphere make it clear that technological architecture can only help so much here: Sure, you can be completely independent of Bluesky PBC on the ATmosphere, as everything is open. But in the end, 99% of users are exclusively on infrastructure owned by Bluesky PBC. No technological architecture can compensate for that kind of the power distribution.
JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
on 04 Nov 21:21
nextcollapse
Interesting read, somewhat enlightening.
But IMO, from the point of view of interoperability, it was bad enough having competing corporate social networks. We don’t want to replace that with competing open meta-networks. And yet ActivityPub and ATProto seem to use completely different paradigms, which would make bridging them pretty hard. Frustrating.
So Nostr actually compares favorably to both since I don’t even know which servers send out by messages to everyone. Also, every single one is IP banned in China already
threaded - newest
Nice article
Interesting read, somewhat enlightening.
But IMO, from the point of view of interoperability, it was bad enough having competing corporate social networks. We don’t want to replace that with competing open meta-networks. And yet ActivityPub and ATProto seem to use completely different paradigms, which would make bridging them pretty hard. Frustrating.
People interested in actual federation would probably never use ATProto anyway
Yeah seems designed to give more power to the large “instances” (whats it called on atproto) who can afford to aggregate the entire network.
So Nostr actually compares favorably to both since I don’t even know which servers send out by messages to everyone. Also, every single one is IP banned in China already
should really be called atproot