Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | arghandugh's commentslogin

The authors’ difficulty is legitimate and real, but there are less than 50 functioning did:web identities total on the planet.

Working outside of did:plc is a choice - this project is on the very ragged, least baked edge of Atmosphere development.


> Working outside of did:plc is a choice

What you're saying is: working outside of centralization is a choice. did:plc is a centralized database controlled by Bluesky.

Bluesky talks a big game about decentralization when it's extremely centralized. Everyone uses the centralized did:plc because it's the one way to really make it function. Until very recently, everyone used the centralized Bluesky AppView - and even now, well over 99% do. Bluesky will say things like "the protocol is locked open", but Bluesky could decide to shut off their firehose at anytime (leaving third parties cut off) and could decide to stop taking incoming data from third parties (leaving anyone on non-Bluesky servers cut off from basically everyone).

In a lot of ways, Bluesky is more like Twitter a decade or so ago. It offers APIs that third parties can use to build off of - but at any time, Bluesky could shut down those APIs. Back then, you could read the Twitter firehose and store the tweets and create your own app view with your own front-end if you wanted. Tweets would need to be sent to the Twitter APIs, but that's not really different than your third-party PDS server sending them to Bluesky if you want anyone else to read them.

You aren't open if someone controls the vast majority of a system because at any time they can decide "why are we doing this open thing? we could probably force the <1% of people elsewhere to migrate to our service if we cut off interoperability." Google Talk (GChat) offered XMPP federation and a lot of people bought into the platform because it was open. At some point, Google realized that the promise of openness had served its purpose and closed it off.

And it's important to think about the long-run here. Twitter was that benevolent dictator for a long time. Bluesky is still early and looking to grow - when they want people building off their system, giving them engagement, ideas, and designs they can copy. We're around year-5 of Bluesky. A decade from now after Bluesky builds its popularity on the back of "we're open and decentralized" while making decentralization extremely difficult, will that change? If Bluesky gets to a few hundred million users and then a third party starts looking like a potential threat, maybe they'll cut that off before they have genuine competition.

Maybe that won't happen with Bluesky. Maybe their investors won't care about the potential for a pay day. But if they have control (either through centralization like did:plc or by controlling the vast majority of the network), there will always be the potential for them to break interoperability. If they start monetizing Bluesky, why should they keep hosting, processing, and serving all that data for third party clients they can't monetize? Why shouldn't they stop federating with third parties before a third party becomes competition?


If Bluesky wants to be taken seriously they need to invest in decentralization themselves and not leave it as an exercise for the reader.


How many users actually care about decentralization?


None, and it's okay to make a centralised platform but I wish people wouldn't fall for the decentralised marketing hype.


Unfortunately most people couldn't care less. Bluesky has been lying about being decentralized since day 1, and yet they have millions of users.


Bluesky has been asymptotically approaching full decentralisation. A few years ago the gap was everything except a decentralised design, then it was AppViews, now it's "tooling and documentation" for the bit of the PKI that only 50 entities have done.

Meanwhile I lost my Mastodon account history because I moved once, couldn't interact with half the network or apps because I was on a non-Mastodon codebase instance, lost my account again because I stopped paying for access to the instance I was on, all classic signs of centralisation.


  > all classic signs of centralisation.
No, these are classic signs of decentralization.

  >  I lost my Mastodon account history because I moved once
Your posts still exist on every server that federated with you, there's just no central authority to coordinate reclaiming them.

  > couldn't interact with half the network or apps because I was on a non-Mastodon codebase instance
Independent implementations having compatibility issues is what happens when there's no central authority enforcing conformance. Frustrating, yes, but it's a symptom of decentralization.

  > lost my account again because I stopped paying for access to the instance I was on
That's just how paying for services works. You could host your own instance, and nobody but yourself can revoke your access.

On Mastodon, if something goes wrong, nobody can cut you off the network entirely. On Bluesky, the author deleted an empty test account and is now blacklisted network-wide until Bluesky support decides to help. That is a classic sign of centralization.


Being beholden to a particular server I have no control over sounds like what happened with Twitter/X.

The posts might exist, but they aren't associated with me. Why not? Because I was locked into somewhere and unable to vote with my feet and go elsewhere.

Maybe I stopped paying because the instance owner enforced sanctions against my country? Why should I lose my identity because of that?

> Independent implementations having compatibility issues is what happens when there's no central authority enforcing conformance. Frustrating, yes, but it's a symptom of decentralization.

Compatibility issues means lock-in to instances under individual control. Shared protocols means lock-in to a protocol, but ultimately freedom to move. We know that open protocols trumps opt-in collaboration by private entities for freedom.

> You could host your own instance, and nobody but yourself can revoke your access.

See also: instances not federating with other instances that are too small. You technically can, but in practice it goes nowhere.

> On Mastodon, if something goes wrong, nobody can cut you off the network entirely.

Bluesky is not perfect, but where it's approaching full decentralisation quickly on a solid foundation, ActivityPub has become the Mastodon show, and is less a decentralised social network, and more a federated set of centralised services with little accountability to users. You can't move, you can't control the content you see, you can't even search. It's a reversion to the days of 14 year olds drunk on power as a mod on a phpbb forum, or the Reddit mods of today.


I've realised that social networks are real–time feeds, not archives. Some archival features can be useful but they are not the main focus of the product. Archival needs are very different from real–time needs and combining them in the same product doesn't work out well.

Consider something simple like Slack: the selling point is that you can send messages to people. Being able to scroll back to last week is useful. Being able to scroll back 3 years is a nonessential bonus.


They are at 0.1% decentralisation, how can you extrapolate asymptotic decentralisation from that?


I honestly can't tell if this comment is trolling.


I'll admit it's a bit charged, but I'm frustrated with bad faith takedowns of ATProto/Bluesky, while Mastodon (and it is Mastodon, not ActivityPub) solves almost none of the actual problems. I tried implementing my own ActivityPub server and the spec is so hilariously lacking that it's understandable that everyone just uses the Mastodon API instead.


ActivityPub isn't actually the spec of Mastodon. Treat claims of "Mastodon is ActivityPub" the same as you treat claims of "Bluesky is decentralised."

Just expose the same interface Mastodon does and you'll be fine. Noting that almost nothing cares about the exact URLs you use, except for webfinger, but does care about the domain being the same as the right side of the @ sign.


> Treat claims of "Mastodon is ActivityPub" the same as you treat claims of "Bluesky is decentralised."

Not sure if you meant this in the way I read it, but I believe that Bluesky is pretty much decentralised and tidying up the last bits of that, and I also believe that Mastodon is functionally ActivityPub and probably mopping up the last bits where the open spec meant anything.

The problem with ActivityPub is that it was missing at least half of what would be necessary to do anything with it, maybe more. You certainly can't create clients with it, it doesn't define anything about writing, etc. It's good that it's an open spec, but I see it as closer to Open Graph tags on web pages than it is to a social network foundation. That's fine... but we treat "Mastodon" as open because of ActivityPub, when in reality almost the entire system is defined by a Rails API implementation and its idiosyncrasies. I see it as a problem that you can't participate in the network without implementing an API with one implementation, rather than by implementing to a spec.


> Bluesky is pretty much decentralised

????? what data could possibly lead to this conclusion?

https://arewedecentralizedyet.online/


> Mastodon (and it is Mastodon, not ActivityPub) solves almost none of the actual problems. I tried implementing my own ActivityPub server and the spec is so hilariously lacking that it's understandable that everyone just uses the Mastodon API instead.

Misskey is an independent implementation, and actually what the biggest server instance runs (or at least was a few years ago).


I think most Bluesky users were happy with a centralized Twitter as long as the people running it were ideologically aligned.


I think a lot of those users do care but they don't know they've been lying.


You are correct - modern society is disgustingly intolerant of child pornography and dictatorships.

Child pornography and dictatorships are good, and there should be more of it.


In addition to being one of the greatest mass murderers in history, he is a financial scam artist of the highest order. Give yourself permission to step outside of his complex of lies and be rational for a bit.


One of the greatest mass murderers in history...? I uh, am morbidly curious to hear your thought process here.


If you are unfamiliar with the shuttering of USAID this year, you “uh” be in an information bubble that is not serving you.

Search terms that will help you on your journey include “DOGE”, “Kenya”, and “cholera”.


...Curiosity satisfied, I suppose. While I disagree with some of the USAID cuts, I don't think that "not giving charity" is the same thing as "mass murder."


Well, that’s between you and your worth as a human being I suppose. I do thank you for doing the legwork.


Sorry what? Who did he murder?

This is the sort of lunacy that immediately gives your argument zero weight.


Search terms that will help you on your journey include “DOGE”, “Kenya”, and “cholera”.

I’m sorry that the death of hundreds of thousands of people did not register in your world, but I feel like charges of “lunacy” are a bit rich coming from someone living in a soft bubble of ignorance.


This is because King Pedophile wants to destabilize the American power grid in order to enrich his donors.

It was an explicit campaign promise that the tech industry completely endorsed and he is fulfilling it.


One illuminating factor as to why: watch their CEO Alex Carp overdose on cocaine while on stage in public.

https://bsky.app/profile/ronfilipkowski.bsky.social/post/3m7...


And then you have Thiel going crazy about biblical end times prophecies involving the anti-christ and I'm starting to wonder wtf they're doing at Palantir.


The other founder is in the news for calling for public hangings to be brought back.


My shitty country bought it anyway.


It seems like he is just trying to make a point with his moving around about being "annoying" - which is what he is talking about.


He appears to be making that point for the entirety of the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i-ys9faa74


I'm pretty sure his surname is a deliberate typo.




It is a disinformation project aimed at morons and morally bankrupt monsters, powered and funded by one of history’s bloodiest mass murderers. Not sure why this takes four pages to investigate.


The rightwing disinformation network is so strong that family members do not believe anything I’m saying about my own city.

Activist billionaire takeovers of media platforms coupled with inflammatory “good enough” AI videos have the potential to irrevocably rupture shared reality.


One behavior you can “watch” that doesn’t require AI is 81 year old Larry Ellison colluding with pedophiles.

https://www.wired.com/story/larry-ellison-is-a-shadow-presid...


Why else do you think buying TikTok isn't just buying access to the world's largest kids menu?


No it won't. This is disinformation from a stock pumping scheme that should be disregarded.


No, they won’t.


why not?


[flagged]


very unconvincing argument and not helpful at all


Which means I’m adding exactly as much to the world as “there will be a semi-truck sized semi-portable nuclear reactor that will somehow work, be politically viable outside of totalitarian regimes, and provide meaningful amounts of localized grid power within our lifetimes”

Zip fucking zero percent chance, forever. Move on.


seems you're adding much, much less to the world, except a cargo ship full of toxic behavior


There’s only one fix for that! Do it.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: