Comment by pfraze
2 days ago
Yeah I’m the guy quoted in the opening of the article.
Yes. Be wary of Bluesky. That’s our whole point. Run the infrastructure on your own. Build separate companies.
Most of the complaints here are just about the cost of scale. You are able to fetch the whole network and its history, and that costs time and money. The only structural centralization is PLC, which is being factored into an independent org.
I'd like to encourage anyone who is wary of Bluesky to check out Paul (and Dominic's) back-in-the-day project Secure-Scuttlebot which solved most of the issues that Bluesky suffers from by using content addressable storage and signing key cryptography correctly.
The actual SSB codebase has been kind of broken since 2020, but I have a fork on my own Github that works and comes with a basic client that you can vibe/claw on top of: https://github.com/evbogue/ssbc
I'm happy to supply pub invites to anyone who wants to play around with the old sbot with me as we work towards making social media distributed again.
Kudos, evbogue. Thank you for the hard work you've done to keep this alive.
> Secure-Scuttlebot which solved most of the issues that Bluesky suffers from
I've heard Paul speak about this the other way around, that the experience from SSB informed the design of ATProto. I.e. ATProto solves most of the issues in SSB
For clarity, ATProto is the protocol, Bluesky is one dozens of apps, obv the biggest and most well known outside of the ATmosphere.
Bluesky does solve a lot of SSBs problems. Both projects can learn from each other. The past can become the future and the present inform the past.
This isn't just on Paul, Jay has publically stated that she doesn't believe users (even powerusers) can be trusted with keypairs.
3 replies →
Considering how hard it has been, and to some extent still is, to run your own Bluesky instance, the main problem is that it automatically becomes centralised in a way that no open protocol will solve.
If 97% of your users are on one instance it is not a distributed platform. Applying this to mastodon, I am pretty sure most people would consider it a problem if mastodon.social started getting more than 40% of active users (currently at about 15 iirc).
Moving the PLC to an independent org doesn't make it decentralized.
I don't seem any claim in GP's comment that it would make it decentralized. It does seem, by looking across your comments in this thread, that
(1) You feel very strongly about what decentralized means w.r.t. social media, bluesky, and the PLC
(2) ATProto accepts that it's not planned to be as decentralized as some want, and that it is currently centralized with secondary validators.
(3) No answer or plan for the PLC is going to satisfy you. Nor is any argument you make going to change the plans for identity in ATProto for the foreseeable future.
This is all fine, people can have different perspectives and work/play in different ecosystems, no one is right or wrong. This is precisely why there are multiple protocols out there and bridges between them.
May I then ask why you keep making comments to the same effect aas those you made in the post and multiple times here ~12h ago?
> This is precisely why there are multiple protocols out there and bridges between them.
Yes, that's great! What's not great is Bluesky attempting a hostile takeover on federated and decentralized social networks. It's been advertised from day 1 as an alternative to centralized silos and it's a lie. [0]
To be fair, projects like Blacksky try to decentralize it (except the identity server, as it's impossible??), and there's now a vibrant developer community around ATProto. That doesn't make the centralization and false marketing claims any less problematic.
Develop the protocol you want. Don't lure my friends into it by pretending it's something that it's not.
[0] https://arewedecentralizedyet.online/
1 reply →
The whole premise of a free social media protocol is that it is resistant to hostile takeovers. All issues stem from this.
1. I absolutely feel very strongly about decentralization. If there is a part of the stack that isn't it opens up the whole project to the kind of issues I'm talking about in the blog post.
2. Then it is not made to be resistant to the above problems
3. Actually, this is where you are wrong! If atproto implemented a more robust, decentralized default identity system I would be a very happy camper.
I make comments because I care about the subject, obviously. I use Bluesky a lot and I don't want it to end up like Twitter.
1 reply →
Does the existence of did:web make it decentralized? You don't have to use the centralized identity provider at all. And if you own a domain why would you?
In theory, yes. In practice, not really, since the vast majority of users won't care to do it.
1 reply →