Even worse then, isn't it! 😬

I've mainly put multiple relays on there so people can see even in the best case scenario, the AT protocol is still putting corporations in control of the network.

@mastodonmigration apparently several people have run their own relays for personal use but it's not for the faint of heart apparently you need several terabytes of preferably solid state storage and a very fast network connection and while the code for the relay server is public it isn't terribly well documented

Take a look at these links if you'd like to learn more
alice.bsky.sh/post/3laega7icmi…

whtwnd.com/bnewbold.net/entrie…

How to self-host all of Bluesky except the AppView (for now) — alice.bsky.sh

by Alice · 3 min read

^{alice.bsky.sh}

@sarah_geri

Doctorow seems to think that if there is a choice of corporate relays, that that will somehow make things okay. I admire him greatly, but respectfully think he is mistaken on this particular topic.

About the diagrams on my post, they should be explained by the text in the original post? Fediverse servers are cheap to run and talk directly to each other, BlueSky servers can only talk to expensive-to-run corporate relays.

@rauschma

As far as I know, in the real world AT protocol servers cannot federate without being connected to relays.

There is also only one relay at the moment.

True! But (and I’m saying that as someone who thinks the Fediverse is the better choice):

It *sounds* like the protocol was designed to support true federation (vs. “big world” design based on Relays). What would that look like?

If that works well then, in principle, AT *could* become a reasonable and open alternative to ActivityPub.

If not (which is my current impression but I may be wrong) then there is no way of that ever happening.

@rauschma

It sounds more like a hypothetical thing in a document rather than a real world thing actually being implemented.

BlueSky are a for-profit corporation dependent on VC money, and they've given their staff shares. That gives all of them a huge financial incentive to create a network that can be bought out by billionaires etc.

It's difficult to see why they would do anything to endanger their ability to sell themselves to wealthy investors.

It’ll be interesting to watch for sure! They made a lot of promises w.r.t. openness.

There is also this group of people: freeourfeeds.com/

It’s interesting that, per their FAQ, they want to build a second Relay. That doesn’t sound like AT will ever be truly decentralized.

It feels like they could achieve their goals with much less money if they focused on ActivityPub instead of AT.

@liveloveintifada

That is 100% fine! 👍 Very happy if this info spreads more widely.

@liveloveintifada added the image to my post from earlier it tells the story straight, about time to, nice work.

hamishcampbell.com/public-soci…

@pzwsk

The standard. Bluesky servers can't talk to each other, they have to go through relays which are substantially more expensive to run.

@oxpal

BlueSky isn't showing things from other instances at all though.

BlueSky is currently just a for-profit centralised single-instance social network, like Twitter or Facebook.

Even if it eventually linked to other instances (which isn't currently happening), it would be through massive corporate relays that would need to exploit user data to fund themselves.

I understand that - and I'm not expecting bsky to stay a viable network for long (their lack of moderation will prob get them first).

But the fact that Mastodon, at it's current state, is not usable for tech-noobs, is true at the same time. I directly experienced that when trying to get some to use it.

@ninjadodo

BlueSky is easier because it's centralised, like Twitter or Facebook. And it's going down exactly the same path to become just as awful as they are, because it is structurally the same: VC backers on a centralised for-profit corporate network.

Even if they "decentralised" with the AT protocol, it would still remain in corporate control.

If someone doesn't mind them becoming awful like this, then they might as well stay on Twitter or Facebook. What's the point of moving?

That's just one of the reasons it's easier.

It's orders of magnitude more usable than both ex-twitter and FB and it's not run by (or overrun with) literal nazis. If you want twitter without the nazis and other shit, that's Bluesky... if you don't mind jumping through myriad technical hoops and a much smaller audience, there's Mastodon.

I'm still detecting zero willingness to look critically at Fedi and its UX issues here.

@ninjadodo

"and it's not run by (or overrun with) literal nazis"

Because of the way Bluesky is structured, Musk could buy it tomorrow. There's nothing to stop Twitter happening all over again.

"If you want to be smug"

I'm not being smug, I am being deeply worried by what centralised corporate social networks have done to the world:

theguardian.com/technology/202…

This is caused by centralised networks run for profit. It doesn't happen at first when it's building up, but it happens eventually.

Rohingya sue Facebook for £150bn over Myanmar genocide

Victims in US and UK legal action accuse social media firm of failing to prevent incitement of violence

^{Dan Milmo (The Guardian)}

Yes, any private company could in theory be bought and change how it operates, but what *could* happen at some unknown point in the future is not what is happening right now, and this again does not address the real weaknesses of Fedi.

The fact is that for most people Bluesky TODAY is a better alternative than Mastodon. This is not because they are stupid, this is because for a non-tech-savvy user basic usability far FAR outweighs any potential advantages of open source independence.

@McNeely

The green dots are servers, I tried to mention this in the captions and alt text?

@503bartley

BlueSky is a centralised social network, it is on one instance like Twitter or Facebook. It's inherently easier to navigate a single instance network, but it comes at the cost of making it ultra-easy to be bought out, Musk etc could buy it any time.

The BlueSky interface is paid for by selling itself to VC investors. The VCs will then be demanding lots of monetisation once they've gathered enough users. They're on the path to becoming as bad as Twitter or Facebook because of this.

@503bartley

It's totally your call what you do, I'm not trying to condemn people's choice of platforms.

However, if we keep jumping the problem will keep repeating, and many never jump so the problem never gets solved anyway.

We have to do things differently if we want to break the cycle.

BlueSky is advertising itself as if it is breaking the cycle, the point of the post above is that they're not really breaking the cycle.

@thebluewizard

Thanks! 🙂 That was the aim, to make the explanation simple enough so everyone can see the issues at stake!

And yes, very keen to see what Spritely comes up with. 🤩

@doc

You might not care about the workings of something, but you might care about the effects of something. No one cares about how a medicine works, but they care if it stops them being sick.

The structure Bluesky has chosen for its tech and its business is very likely to repeat all the problems that Twitter, Facebook etc suffer from.

The things that make people leave Twitter & Facebook now are going to get repeated on Bluesky with its current structure. Then they'll have to move again.

If they have no time or will to consider sustainability, then they will end up having these same Musk-type problems happen to them again and again. I'm not saying this with any sort of judgement against them, it is just the consequence of their choices.

It's much easier to use a single-instance network, but that makes it easy to be taken over.

It's much easier to use a network that has massive amounts of funding from VCs, but that makes it certain to enshittify and exploit its users.