Readit NewsDeleted Comment
... or am I misunderstanding?
Sure, that's true, but I, personally, care mostly about one question: Who holds the keys to the kingdom? In this respect, I think the AT Protocol fails spectacularly, mainly due to the lack of a credible strategy to implement really self-custodian identities.
> You also mentioned an issue with the bluesky relay, but others already exist so it's not techincally tied to Bluesky. Heck, I think the fact multiple can exist at the same, while degrades the social aspect, still makes it decentralized.
Yes, but this is also true for Nostr, Diaspora, Mastodon, etc. The difference being, last time I checked (and of course things might have changed in the meantime) with AT Protocol it was only possible to self-host part of the infrastructure (and hosting the relay is insanely demanding).
> As for the identity management issue, they announced just last week that it's getting branched to an independent entity: https://docs.bsky.app/blog/plc-directory-org
This is another example of gaslighting from Bluesky that just makes me angry. How in the holiest of Hells does an "Identity directory controlled by a Swiss Association" make the whole thing better?
Sorry, not buying it. I don't have a horse in the race, but won't fall for the marketing.
> Who holds the keys to the kingdom? In this respect, I think the AT Protocol fails spectacularly, mainly due to the lack of a credible strategy to implement really self-custodian identities
From what I've read, you can still own the entire stack from top to bottom, none of it is necessarily tied to bluesky. Even the identity managed being discussed only applies to bluesky, and whatever ecosystem subscribed to it; but in theory, you could create your own social platform with a new one (you'd obviously lose that ecosystem). But then again, this would also apply to Mastodon, since whoever owns the instance could always nuke it, and if you own your own instance, you need to build an network that trusts you. There's always an authority involved.
> The difference being, last time I checked (and of course things might have changed in the meantime) with AT Protocol it was only possible to self-host part of the infrastructure (and hosting the relay is insanely demanding).
Well it's definitely not the "50TB" you mentioned e.g here is someone running a relay on a $34/month vps and isn't going to accumulate more disk: https://whtwnd.com/bnewbold.net/3lo7a2a4qxg2l But it's importance is overblown anyway, it's just a json transmitter for signed data. I think the pds and identity managements are the better concern, and I hope there's a better way to decentralize those (if that makes sense).
EDIT: You're still correct that to fully spin up a new bluesky on your own you'd need an insane amount of storage for hosting all that data that's currently stored on bluesky (especially the did:plc and pds). All good arguments against the company, but that's only because people are choosing to store their pds repositories on bluesky. You could just as well point your repo to your own server and use a different social media. They could go under and someone else can create a new app view. I find that really cool; still leaves the identity issue open.
However, this post was about the at protocol, which seems like you just hand-waved in one sentence:
> The AT Protocol used by Bluesky has some interesting features, although to be honest I don't know how many of these are just impossible to achieve on ActivityPub or are just WIP lagging behind due to funding constraints.
I don't think the debate between them is super useful because their architectures are very different.
You also mentioned an issue with the bluesky relay, but others already exist so it's not techincally tied to Bluesky. Heck, I think the fact multiple can exist at the same, while degrades the social aspect, still makes it decentralized.
As for the identity management issue, they announced just last week that it's getting branched to an independent entity: https://docs.bsky.app/blog/plc-directory-org
> Self-hosting a Bluesky PDS means running your own Personal Data Server that is capable of federating with the wider ATProto network.
So pds (personal data server) is like the container where you chose to store the data and it follows a certain standard.
If the container is hosted is bluesky, i still consider it a "bluesky api" but I understand the nuance better now.
Also, does everyone need to have their own domain name in order to have an identity cuz that seems like a non-starter.
If you're creating a social app, website, or whatever, you still have to host all your users' data regardless. This is just about the protocol you use which enables universal compatibility, meaning users have the choice to store elsewhere.
> Also, does everyone need to have their own domain name in order to have an identity cuz that seems like a non-starter.
Not really. Bluesky is a good example; when you first sign up it does it for you under their own top domain by default iirc, but the great thing is you can actually use your own domain.
Question:
> What’s more interesting is that Tangled prefilled my avatar based on my Bluesky profile. It didn’t need to hit the Bluesky API to do that; it just read the Bluesky profile record in my repository.
I'm a bit confused by this. If a bluesky avatar contains an image, isn't that stored (at least by default) within bluesky? Meaning that Tangled will have to hit the Bluesky API?
Or maybe Dan is saying that his own repository is not hosted with Bluesky in which it would make sense, if wherever his repo is stored is getting hit to retrieve the image.
On desktop, apps aren't sandboxed. On mobile, they are. Breaking out of the sandbox is a security breach.
On desktop, people don't install an app for every fast food chain. On mobile, they do.