I’m not the author, just sharing.
Copy/pasting a comment from another thread:
That’s the same argument people made about Twitter. “If it goes bad, we’ll just leave.” We know how that played out.
This conclusion is based on a misunderstanding of both what Frazee meant, and how the protocol works. He wasn’t saying to switch to a different platform altogether, but to switch to a different appview, akin to switching instances on mastodon.
If I were to make the same argument for mastodon: Mastodon.social has gone evil, there’s a new alternative called mstdn.social that people are rushing to. I’m switching to mstdn.social.
In the case of bluesky, the bluesky appview has made some bad moderation decisions, so users annoyed at this can (and do) use blacksky’s appview.
Switching appviews doesn’t have the hassle of switching mastodon instances though, you just have to go to a different site, and login again. You can continue using your old PDS.
You may recall that there were some articles about how one user on blacksky’s servers got banned, but he was still gone from blacksky’s app?
That’s not even true, the user is available on blacksky’s appview: https://staging.blacksky.community/profile/spacelawshitpost.me .
What had happened here was:
- Link had an account on a blacksky pds (https://blacksky.app/)
- Blacksky runs a bluesky client (not appview, just the frontend–that makes requests to another appview), pointed towards bluesky) at https://blacksky.community/.
- Link gets (unfairly) banned from bluesky, but his account is still safe on his PDS, but viewing it on blacksky.community shows that it was banned, because blacksky.community was pointed at bluesky’s appview.
- Some people assume bluesky is the same as fedi (without the split between data storage and applications), and this means bluesky banning him banned him on his home instance, since the client said he was banned.
- Blacksky didn’t run an appview at the time (iirc, they are writing their own implementation from scratch), but they do now.
In reality, his account was still viewable on alternate appviews, like wafrn instances. You could (and still can) also view and intereact his account on https://reddwarf.app/ , a client that works through direct PDS queries, that doesn’t rely on a relay or appview.
When you use any ATProto app, it writes data to your Personal Data Server, or PDS. Your Bluesky posts, your Tangled issues, your Leaflet publications, your Grain photos. All of it goes to the same place.
This is done intentionally, and it has a lot of advantages over how the fediverse does things.
Instead of having to make a new account for every different “style” of platform, you can use your existing PDS account. PDSes are also very flexible in what they can hold, you can create a record that contains basically anything.Also, data isn’t just stored on your PDS, it’s also stored on relays and appviews. Data is content addressed, meaning that it is portable, you can easily move all your data to another PDS. This isn’t possible on the fediverse as all data is “centralised” to it’s instance. While you can move your followers, your posts immovable.
You can self-host a PDS. Almost nobody does. Why would they? Bluesky’s PDS works out of the box with every app, zero setup, zero maintenance. Self-hosting means running a server, keeping it online, and gaining nothing in return.
To be fair, migration tools exist. You can move your account to a self-hosted PDS for as little as $5 a monthThis sounds like the author is implying your only option is to self host, when there’s many different PDSes with open signups already.
I was able to migrate to https://altq.net/ (semi-open PDS, you have to ask an admin for an invite code to stop spam), with no self hosting involved.
Bluesky has made this easier over time and even supports moving back. But this only works if you do it before the door closes. If an acquirer disables exports, it doesn’t matter that the tools existed yesterday. And we know from every platform transition in history that almost nobody takes proactive steps to protect their data.
This isn’t exclusive to atproto. A fediverse instance could decide to block incoming migrations, or to block outgoing migrations (pixelfed.social has had outgoing migrations disabled for a while recently).
It’s also possible to move permissionlessly, if you get your rotation key, you can migrate PDSes, even if your old pds is gone, or your admin tries to block exports.It’s not just the PDS. Bluesky controls almost every critical layer:
The Relay. All data flows through it. Bluesky runs the dominant one. Whoever controls the relay controls what gets seen, hidden, or deprioritized.
Relays are less relevant than everyone thinks they are. Appviews don’t have to use relays, they just help solve the missing data problem of the fediverse. AppViewLite is a project that lets you crawl PDSes directly–no relay involved!
Relays are also a part of the fediverse, for the same reasons they exist on atproto.
Third parties can run their own, but without the users, it doesn’t matter.
This again feels like the article is implying that there isn’t third party relays running already. Blacksky runs a relay at https://atproto.africa/ . There’s also:
- https://relay.fire.hose.cam/
- and three relays ran by https://firehose.network/
off the top of my head. As stated previously, relays aren’t an integral part of the network. With direct PDS crawling and stuff like https://constellation.microcosm.blue/, there’s no inherent need for a relay.
It’s worth mentioning that relays aren’t that expensive to run. It’s possible to run one for $34 a month.
The DID Directory. Your identity on ATProto resolves through a centralized directory run by Bluesky. They’ve called it a “placeholder” since 2023 and said they plan to decentralize it. There’s still no timeline.
Plc.directory is currently in the process of being moved to an independent swiss company. It’s just taking time because legal stuff takes time.
If plc.directory disappears, the network doesn’t fall apart, there’s many different mirrors. I have a mirror on a PC in my attic.There’s also a second supported
did:did:web. This runs entirely independently of bluesky.At every layer, the answer is “anyone can run their own.” At every layer, almost nobody does.
This ignores the fact that people do run stuff.
The protocol says you can leave. But the company that just paid billions for the network has no incentive to let you.
The protocol is designed so you can leave, even if your PDS/host has been taken over. This is why they did stuff like portable objects/identity, which the fediverse doesn’t do.
If bluesky gets taken over, they don’t have a way of stopping exports, whereas a malicious mastodon instance can.The main argument against bsky is that they’re still holding all of your data, unless you self host your own server.
I don’t actually see how Lemmy is much different. Most users are not self hosting on Lemmy either, you’re trusting your data to a 3rd party. The main difference seems to be that there’s much more centralisation on bsky.
I think it’s entirely reasonable to be wary of any service, be ready to delete your account if it goes to shit or whatever it is you need to do to feel safe.
But right now, I like blue sky. I’ve had far more positive interactions on there than I ever had on twitter (even before musk took it over), the lists feature that lets you pre-emptively block entire swathes of dickheads is a game changer (I just block one group, anyone Maga) and I’m having a good time.
I expect I’ll get downvoted for this but honestly I don’t care, the world has gone to shit far too much for me to give a crap about what internet strangers think over my own health and wellbeing and right now I’m having a good time and will not apologise for it.
The second that stops, I’ll be leaving bsky.
The main argument against bsky is that they’re still holding all of your data, unless you self host your own server.
That’s not the main argument against it. The main argument is that it’s not federated.
Bluesky is federated though. Like, you can selfhost every part of it and communicate with bsky users just fine: see wafrn and blacksky.
You can argue that it’s not decentralised because one instance has 99% of the users though
You’re right that the issue isn’t just trusting a third party in general, that’s how it is for most users on Lemmy or Mastodon too.
The difference isn’t whether you personally run a server. It’s whether the network depends on a single company.
Bluesky operating basically all of the infrastructure on that network means:
- they decide moderation policy and what content gets boosted or hidden for everyone
- they alone can change the rules for access and in general (ads, pay to be seen etc.)
- they can de-prioritize or cut off third-party infrastructure
- if the company fails, pivots or is pressured legally (I’m sure the current US government could never do such a thing), the network can effectively collapse
Here on Lemmy there is no single company that has all that power. If your admin goes bad there are real options to move to and the network will still exist even if they shut their service down. You also have much more leverage over here because you have those options and no operator is drawing in tens or hundreds of millions from investors who get to make the decisions.
I agree. But it’s a bit scary even for Lemmy, given that all the most active communities are currently hosted on the same 1 or 2 biggest instances.
Also, see what recently happened to LemmyNSFW…
I just facepalm internally whenever I see someone recommending bluesky on the fediverse.
I know I should stop holding them to a higher standard, but still.
Yeah, but it has a good UI and isn’t a massive echo chamber so what cha gonna do?
Normies just get screeched at by tankies and nerds and leave 🤷♂️
lol, how is it not a massive echo chamber when that has been the constant complaint in countless articles that keep getting made fun of instead of being taken seriously on Bluesky.
Because the most common people complaining about Bluesky fall into 1 of 2 groups:
People upset that Bluesky isn’t tolerating their behavior (mostly Nazis and transphobes angry about the community not letting it become Truth Social 2 or allowing transphobes to harass users, but also certain leftist groups, much like the tankies here on Lemmy)
People upset that the infrastructure isn’t FOSS or some similar complaint about it not being enough (purity test behavior like in every comment section on Lemmy)
And people saying that Bluesky is an echo chamber tend to fall very heavily into group 1.
I mean…yeah. The guy who created Bluesky is the same guy who created Twitter originally. What makes you think anything would be different? I’m honestly surprised they’re even humoring the idea of decentralization.
I really really REALLY don’t get people who leave one company turned bad to turn to another company trying the same thing.
They’ll be the good guys for sure!
He also left Bluesky in 2024 after it didn’t become the libertarian techbro wankfest he envisioned and was instead heavily populated by folks who didn’t want to slob Elon’s knob.
He publicly distanced himself but Bluesky’s ownership is very opaque and they do dishonest PR very well so I would not be at all surprised if Dorsey still owns a part of it.
And he fucked a potato after peeling it and putting it in a sandwich baggy!
Are you asking people to send you photos of that?
Jack dorsey didn’t create bluesky, and he had little effect on it.
He started the team for bluesky after reading protocols, not platforms. They were given a lot of independence from twitter (so much so that they were able to continue as a separate thing after twitter got musk-ed), but the goal was to eventually implement the protocol they come up with/choose on twitter.He was on their board for a short period of time, but ragequit and deleted his account after they started moderating content.
I also find the idea the people working on bluesky are “holding back” the decentralisation efforts funny, considering they are making literally no money right now.
I do think the people behind it like the idea of data portability and decen, just not enough to compromise their business for it.
This seems to be the closest to a reasoned argument in this thread. Realistically, what should they be doing differently?
deleted by creator
Bluesky is in its essence a corpo methadone for the Twitter addicts… its not freedom, its a packaged, tailored simulacrum of it.
IMO this is unfair and conspiratorial. The people behind Bluesky have been quite clear about where they are trying to go (i.e. not simply replace Twitter), some of those people have a lot of credibility in this area, built up over years. Maybe they make different assumptions about tech and user preferences but I see no reason to assume evil intentions.
From the second article:
But I’m not on Bluesky and I don’t have any plans to join it anytime soon. I wrote about this in 2023: I will never again devote my energies to building up an audience on a platform whose management can sever my relationship to that audience at will
Fair enough. But, as you know already, AT Protocol is not chained to Bluesky. Other things are already being built on it (Blacksky for instance). Sure, the startup costs of federation are high, but that was a technical choice. To insist that it’s all a plot to become the next evil Twitter continues to feel a bit swivel-eyed to me.
This is yet another version of the ridiculous “we’re decentralized in theory so it doesn’t matter that we aren’t in practice” argument which the article does address. In practice it is chained because they are in complete control of the real-world use of it.
People are even worried about Google’s control over Android recently and Google has much less power over AOSP than Bluesky Corp. has over ATproto.
What is swivel-eyed is believing that Venture Capitalists won’t do the thing they’ve historically always done in the past when they’re in control.
they are in complete control of the real-world use of it
They’re not. I mentioned Blacksky.
As I understand it, their endgame is that Bluesky will be a big fish in a pond of other fish, and that the best way to get that fishpond is to make Bluesky as good a product as possible, hence the (limited) VC money.
As a strategy it has risks but so does the alternative. To make the obvious comparison, UX on the fediverse is rubbish, with an incomprehensible onboarding funnel, amateurish design, servers that keep disappearing. There’s a reason Bluesky has eaten the fediverse’s lunch.
With respect, I think people here are making this into a sterile religious war when really it’s a disagreement about strategy. Some of the people who vouch for Bluesky I have been following for years. They want exactly the same things as most people here. Personally, I see no reason to question their intentions.
I’ll take the “eeewww ugly UI” risk over the “high barriers to decentralization” risk.
Blacksky does not fundamentally change the situation. They’ve got a yearly budget in excess of $100,000 and roughly 0.01% of the users. Bluesky can make all those users completely disappear from the other 99.99% with the press of a button and in the case of Link they did exactly that.
As for the “let’s trust the Bluesky team” idea, that’s of course exactly what got everyone into this mess with Twitter. The leadership can change. The investors can push them to do what they want no matter how great people the public facing team may seem to be (and honestly some of the things they’ve done has not inspired trust).
OK I get all that and it’s not to be dismissed. But their product is better than what we have here. That’s why Blacksky built upon it and not upon this, despite the cost. The excessive centralization seems to be more of a human problem than a technical one. Humans take the path of least resistance and Bluesky’s resources have allowed it to make a product that the fediverse will never be able to compete with.
Personally, I get what I want here (I don’t use Bluesky) but it’s pretty clear to me that I’m not representative (in caring about the principle of decentralization) and neither are you. I’m a pragmatist by nature. Bluesky and AT Proto are an obvious improvement on Twitter. If they have the potential to be a version of decentralization that actually takes off and goes mainstream (because let’s be serious, the fediverse is not doing that), then personally I would take that win. It hasn’t happened yet but personally I’m not going to spit on it in advance like everyone here is doing.
Why would people here consider Bluesky when Mastodon already exists?
Bluesky built the platform that people actually want.
Mainly an algorithmic feed and more relaxed and diverse userbase.
If twitter but with less right wing voices is what the people wanted then they will be sorely disappointed when bluesky enshittifies with no real recourse to prevent it. If everyone just hops on over to blacksky or whatever other 3rd party relay exists, they’ve still got the same problem. All the power resides in a single entity. Bluesky’s basic defense of their platform is that if they enshittify then ATProto allows some other benevolent corporation to take their place but has one major flaw. Corporations are not benevolent
You’re assuming the only way to run the network is to be benevolent? Do you think there is no way they can raise enough revenue to cover costs without enshittifying? Normal people have a pretty high tolerance for monetization. Premium subs, ads in app purchases will probably easily cover running costs and I wouldnt consider that to be enshittified.
Also the amount of right wing voices on the platform doesnt matter. The tools make it easy to block them out.
I am skeptical that it can grow to be a network the size of twitter, be ran as a for-profit, and not enshittify. I can’t think of a single example that hasn’t. Bluesky has ran as a public benefit corporation so far, but it has to keep the lights on somehow.
It took twitter years to run somewhat profitably. Even then Twitter was enshittified before Musk bought it. Premium subs are probably the least enshittified way to raise revenue, but ads and algorithms meant to raise engagement towards those ads are very much enshittification in action. That “normal people” have a high level of monetization they are willing to tolerate, is just grease on the wheels toward enshittification.
I admittedly have a limited understanding of the full operation of ATProto so please correct me if wrong. Appviews/lists/feeds are supposed to be the defense of ad/algorithm enshittification, anyone could write an appview with a different algorithm.
And this is why I assume that the network can only be run without enshittification, is by a benevolent provider. If Bluesky becomes hostile to an Appview that allows users to bypass ads or engagement farming, users can move their PDS to another relay that isn’t hostile to it. But there still remains the underlying reason that Bluesky would theoretically have become hostile to it. I don’t see how blacksky, for instance, wouldn’t also have to eventually take the same steps.
They captured some hype but nowadays you often see people complain that the userbase isn’t diverse and that all they talk about is US politics, there’s lots of dormant accounts and the active user statistics have been looking pretty bleak since early 2025.
Assuming they don’t actually have 100M in funding already secured (which i doubt) I think there’s some doubt over how long they’ll actually be able to continue operating this way.
Network effects.
Adulation of for profit big tech assholes is near ubitious.
It’s popularity had nothing to do with the protocol and making cries to such does nothing.
Make fediverse competitive client wise, and stop screeching at peoples in the center when they call Gavin progressive 🤷♂️. It’s not the tech that keeps people away, it’s the users.
With the fediverse it IS the tech. Lack of recommendation engines, and overall more sluggish experience compared to established social media does deter a lot of people away. Some things might change, but lot of stuff that makes social media better for most people is against what fediverse wants
Agreed. They’re both open on the internet and the data is in many repositories. Moot point (OPs’, not yours).
It obviously matters whether the data and control is mostly in one company’s hands, not just whether it is in “many repositories”.
Do you not get ‘open on the internet’? All the three letter agencies hoover the data up, your countries equivalents do as well, other companies. It’s only a bit in one companies hands, because it’s ‘open on the internet’, just like xitter, facebook, tiktok, their walled gardens don’t stop state level actors, just us plebs (a bit). That just leaves control (in real time), some power, some money there, but long term it’s the data that counts.
I don’t think you’re even talking about the points the article makes… You probably wouldn’t want them selling your data either but this is more about avoiding the kind of fate Twitter had.
The cries are about how Bluesky uses it and implements the required infrastructure, not the protocol itself.
I’ve run into people like that on Bluesky much more than on the fediverse. They do of course exist on both.
you mean the social network whose CEO told users to simply stop posting on their platform when she refused to ban a publicly known racist and transphob from the platform? that social network? The social network whose users decided segregating themselves was the best way to use said platform? that one?
Bluesky is a joke and its userbase are the punchline.
Bluesky is a joke and its userbase are the punchline.
Succinctly said, I love it
Pretty funny to see this here because this blog post seems like written with AI assistance (“it’s not just x, it’s y”, etc.) and also its author advocates for Nostr instead.
(“it’s not just x, it’s y”, etc.)
Keep in mind, the AIs learned from us. So that’s a thing in AI responses because humans use that structure. Same with em dashes.
Yes but in this specific case the author owns up to using Claude for “editing” of the blog entries.
Fair enough. I guess I’m just overly sensitive to the broad-strokes assumption that any given thing is an AI “smoking gun” since I’m an em dash user.
Not much substance to your comment… do you agree with it?
