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
thank you
I could be connected to the internet but unable to route to something so there may be cases where an internet connection does not strictly mean the internet is working properly
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
ATProto is not the Fediverse. Is there something in this blog you think should be discussed in the context of the Fediverse?
Wait how is it not the fediverse?
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 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 idea of the Fediverse is simply a group of social networks communicating through the same protocol, is that not what ATProto is attempting to accomplish?
I’ve been a long time supporter that ATProto actually is apart of the Fediverse. The ultimate goal of this subreddit is a fully decentralized social media landscape. Fracturing discussion between ActivityPub and ATProto helps no one, especially in niche communities like this. The long-term goal is the same, and whether that progression happens on protocol A or platform B it’s progressive nonetheless and we should discuss it.
The Fediverse is ActivityPub, because ActivityPub is how Fediverse servers talk to each other. BlueSky does not talk to Fediverse servers, so it cannot be said to be part of the Fediverse.
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.
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/fediverse@lemmy.world/t/705694/-/comment/5682552
wE CaN aRgUe SeMaNtiCs aLL dAy
we shouldn’t be fracturing the communities
Maybe use the same protocol, then.
And what common protocol is that? If it doesn’t talk to Fediverse servers using those servers’ protocol, then it’s not part of the same network.
ATProto is it’s own protocol / network of social media services that are communicating with each other?
So we agree that it is a different network? It is not the network that is the Fediverse?
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.
https://dustycloud.org/blog/how-decentralized-is-bluesky/
I support what they wanna do with a credible exit, but claiming that their goal is to or that they do make it easy for multiple different social networks (your PDS is not a new network, it’s data locally stored for the existing network) to communicate with each other is just false
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.
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
ATProto is not decentralized.
Would love to know why you think it’s not?
This seems to describe my answer to this question in more detail than I’d be capable of right now: https://dustycloud.org/blog/how-decentralized-is-bluesky/
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 and then entirely including moderation and all
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
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.
Neither this community’s sidebar nor Wikipedia agree with your definition.
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/fediverse@lemmy.world/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.
“Reconciliation must come before economic cooperation”, and I doubt that there will be imminent “reconciliation” between Bluesky and people who want to spend less than $100 for each month that they want to back up content shared using the AT Protocol. This is not impossible (since “Bluesky is a Public Benefit Corporation”), and there is a documented goal to have “multiple independent Relay services”, but it seems that having one would cost well over $100 each month. In the meantime, trying to cooperate with a person is harder to justify when you don’t know if they are actually willing to help you or not.
As a relevant example, consider that there are a notable number of people who wish to avoid cooperating with
threads.neteven though I would describe it as being part of the Fediverse.
Read on to literally the next paragraph, which says Diaspora is the only still developed platform that matches the original definition and does not use ActivityPub, or to the section that explicitly calls ATProto a Fediverse alternative.
The first paragraph is descriptive of the Fediverse, not a test for whether something is part of it. The Internet is a collection of computers communicating via TCP/IP. That doesn’t mean any two computers communicating over TCP/IP are now part of the Internet.
We’re just arguing semantics just to argue at this point.
I can say how the paragraph says the majority of Fediverse platforms operate on ActivityPub and how ATProto is not within that majority at the moment.
Or I can say yes Diaspora is the only one that matches the original definition, but what is the definition now?
But a much better conversation is why we’re trying to fracture our conversations around decentralized social media? The data is open and can be bridged. At that point are both protocols the Fediverse? Why are we digging ourselves into a whole here on the Activitypub side and refusing to discuss how we can further the Fediverse and decentralization?
Because this is not c/maybefederatedsocialnetworks, it’s c/fediverse, which is a specific thing.
And what does the next paragraph say after that?
ATProto isnt the same protocol as activityhub which is what we are using to post/communicate between different instances.
You would argue that its all REST I suppose?
Instead of being a patronizing ass, how about let’s have some discussion about
The ultimate goal of this subreddit is a fully decentralized social media landscape.
And how ATProto is not accomplishing this / what they can be doing differently than what’s outlined in their blog post
Or a counter argument to
Fracturing discussion between ActivityPub and ATProto helps no one, especially in niche communities like this.
