I thought this was slightly funny.
Mark Zuckerberg is known these days for wearing t-shirts with Latin phrases on them, especially ones where he compares himself to Julius Caesar.
Bluesky made a shirt in the same style, but theirs says “a world without Caesars” in Latin.
The fact that we don’t see this yet, and that Bluesky has accepted the amount of money they have from actors I would not want to be associated with, makes me doubt this is possible.
Even if a non-profit wanted to operate with good intentions, the expense of running an AT proto hub would eventually prove a challenge, and the non-profit would either go under or need to start looking around for money. Meanwhile people can self-host their Mastodon instance on a Raspberry Pi.
Regarding the alleged missing features of ActivityPub, I have tried and failed to understand exactly which feature is the AT proto folks so desperately wanted that they found it impossible to achieve through ActivityPub. The whole thing with having a mobile identity or whatever seems like a nothing burger to me - at the end of the day it just means that your user name is your DID number, and that web addresses can redirect towards that one. It’s hardly some technological marvel that could never have been achieved on a less centralized protocol.
It can be done on the fediverse anyway.
My one complaint about fediverse is I have half a dozen baronvonj@<service> accounts in order to get the features and UI experience of each. They are all separate, with the data for each spread out, and we all have to redundantly follow on each. If I could have one fediverse identity with all my data self-hosted, that would be the awesomesauce. But I can’t with fedi and I can with AT.
I guess that’s fair, as a way to make users identifiable with the same user name all over the internet, no matter which platform they are on.
When people sign in using bluesky on https://frontpage.fyi/, they are still bluesky accounts? Or does the account somehow transform into something that exists between both sites?
Is there any real innovation here beyond a combination of “sign in with x service” and having your domain appear as your user name?
frontpage will store its data on your user server.
I’m not sure if it’s good window dressing on top of SAML/OAUTH but I see the same username on both. Not this is not me, I just scrolled frontpage.fyi and picked a poster at random then searched the same username on bsky.app.
https://bsky.app/profile/tonybark.com https://frontpage.fyi/profile/tonybark.com
Yeah, they will use their domains, and they can sign in with Bluesky. So it is the same account to a pretty significant degree. What I’m wondering is if the Frontpage user would break if Bsky.app disappeared, or if the user could still sign in as the identity is somehow truly decentralized.
As for domains as user names, I guess ActivityPub could achieve something by allowing users to have verified websites (mastodon style) appear as their user names. I don’t really see what would have to change on a protocol level to make this possible.
Identity is decentralized through the protocol so they’d be fine. Bluesky at the end of the day is just app view that sits on top of the protocol so it can disappear and everything will continue operating as long as there’s a relay online.
But on frontpage.fyi, if you want to sign up, you have to sign up through Bluesky. They direct you to bsky.app to create your account.
I just don’t see how this is a real functional example of a portable account. Maybe it is not supposed to be - if so, is the decentralized nature of accounts demonstrated anywhere in a practical way?
I struggle to understand things I cannot see.
You can login with any pds (personal data server) on frontpage, i can self host my own one, and login with it on frontpage.
Okay, that’s more interesting! Thanks!
Yeah I would say they likely just aren’t using the protocol properly, that being said I’m not sure I know of an example who is.
Why are we acting like this is a detail.
Why did I have to burrow all the way down to this spot to see this?
The conversation should begin, or very nearly begin with this as it puts EVERYTHING ELSE around bluesky hype into question, it transmutes the castles you are describing into constructions of sand that might topple any moment to forces of money, greed and effective (even if not explicit) centralized control.
sigh I don’t mean to attack you personally, but this conversation feels so warped sometimes.
There are significant differences in account portability. ActivityPub allows you to transfer your followers to a new server, but not your content.
Nothing in ActivityPub says you can’t move your content from one platform to another. It’s just that Mastodon does not have this feature at the moment.
Meanwhile, I’m not sure whether Bluesky has this feature or not, but it’s somewhat irrelevant considering the fact that there are no other platforms to move your content to. The only thing I’ve actually seen from this is that you can use an URL as your username in the front-end, though it just points towards the same DID in the backend. I struggle to see what the great achievement here is.
If this was the reasoning behind Bluesky, they could have developed a platform running on AP supporting the transfer of content between instances, and it would have been a whole lot easier than developing a whole new protocol.
Your content in ActivityPub is linked to the home instance. So for example I can’t move this post from lemmy.world to another server. I could copy/paste the content into a new post on another server, but it would be a broken piece of our conversation with no context or replies.
Also, hosting a ATProto self-instance is not as expensive as you suggest. This person did it for $150/month.
Fair - you could host a copy or a link (or a sort of combination between the two, I guess), but it wouldn’t transfer the ownership of the original post. I’m still not sure this is such a pressing feature that I accept it as the actual raison d’etre of AT proto, especially considering how it very much exists there only in theory at best. But it is interesting technology, and something they could maybe have worked with ActivityPub to try to achieve.
I’m glad to hear that maybe Bluesky is more decentralized than I suspect, but Bluesky engineer whose blog post you linked still links to his bluesky account on bsky.social. If running a separate instance is achievable, I would love to see people actually do it.
You full on misunderstand the protocol. The .bsky.social subdomain does not denote what “instance” you are on. There are no instances on atproto. That user could be self hosting all there data and still use that subdomain. It’s not mutually exclusive. Atproto is far more atomic than AP.
Right. I guess that’s similar with bridged users - you see them on bsky.app, even though they are actually located elsewhere.
What I struggle with is seeing the decentralization in practice, when the only place I can ever see AT proto in action is when Bluesky users are bridged to the fediverse. Bluesky has a shitload of users and there are a bunch of people jumping on the technology - why is there not so much as an understandable proof of concept out there?
On ActivityPub it’s so easy to understand. “See this post? Well, here’s the same post on some other domain, hosted by other people”.
I don’t understand how Bluesky can be this difficult to understand, yet apparently fulfil such a fundamental need.
It’s fairly easy to understand but you won’t really see it and that by design. The point is to make the underpinning so seamless that it feels like a centralized app. The proof of concept is Bluesky, but if you would like to see other services that are completely unaffiliated with Bluesky PBC than check out:
All of these and many more are being built along with infrasstucture plays from the like of Blacksky, Northsky, and Free our Feeds.
Thanks! Maybe I’m just dumb in my own unique way, but I find the practical implications of AT proto hard to wrap my head around. :)
My understanding is that running most of BlueSky is possible on small to moderate hardware. However, running all of BlueSky requires basically cloning 100% of all the content on BlueSky (which, as of Nov 2024, was ~5 TB).
So, like, yes, one can run part of BlueSky or a clone of BlueSky which has none of the main instance’s user’s content without much trouble, but actually running an entire BlueSky stack is eventually going to become cost prohibitive.
I found this write-up to be enlightening on the subject.