4 ms·

Why would they expect anyone to build on top of their new social networking protocol? It is owned and will be driven by a private company and it’s desire for p

Why would they expect anyone to build on top of their new social networking protocol? It is owned and will be driven by a private company and it’s desire for profitability, ActivityPub is an open standard that has been around for ~5 years and battle tested and already in use across different platforms.

linza 4y ago
> It is owned and will be driven by a private company and it’s desire for profitability [...] I imagine that that's the exact reason why for example advertisers will opt for bluesky over mastodon immediately, under the assumption that the reach would be the same.
JustSomeNobody 4y ago
Maybe he expects Elmo to buy it and use it for Twitter 2.0?
hbn 4y ago
And if they ever plan to monetize they're gonna be at the behest of payment processors and advertisers, and will censor just like everyone else.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  They can't censor other people's instances. Advertisers would advertise per-instance.
  - wmf 4y ago
    I assume the iOS app would have to censor all instances.
ch71r22 4y ago
Maybe their efforts will be co-opted, but judging by the team's background -- André Staltz with Secure Scuttlebutt, Paul Frazee with dat/Beaker/Hypercore Protocol -- I think it's pretty clear the driving motivation for much of the team behind Bluesky is not profit. As for why people might want to use it instead of ActivityPub, I think it's just... different from ActivityPub. Even though ActivityPub is an available option I don't see why it should be the last word. Bluesky's answer is this > Account portability is the major reason why we chose to build a separate protocol. We consider portability to be crucial because it protects users from sudden bans, server shutdowns, and policy disagreements. Our solution for portability requires both signed data repositories and DIDs, neither of which are easy to retrofit into ActivityPub. The migration tools for ActivityPub are comparatively limited; they require the original server to provide a redirect and cannot migrate the user's previous data. > Other smaller differences include: a different viewpoint about how schemas should be handled, a preference for domain usernames over AP’s double-@ email usernames, and the goal of having large scale search and discovery (rather than the hashtag style of discovery that ActivityPub favors). https://atproto.com/guides/faq#why-not-use-activitypub https://atproto.com/guides/faq#why-not-use-activitypub
- smoldesu 4y ago
  > We consider portability to be crucial because it protects users from sudden bans, server shutdowns, and policy disagreements I think this will have the opposite effect. Account portability means that being banned on one site can ban you on another if you try to use the same ID. Being persistently recognized across accounts seems like a net-negative for all of these things.
  - serverholic 4y ago
    Same with mastodon. Your id is tied to the server so if you get banned you have to create a new id on another server. Mastodon is worse because your data is in the server owner’s hands. At least with Bluesky your identity and server are separate so you still have your data.
    - dmix 4y ago
      Exactly, it's just removing the pointless (and terrible UX) step of having to sign up again. I imagined trying to explain to my mom why she'd have to signup for Mastadon again because the server she signed up with is gone or she got on one of the massive blacklists for engaging with the 'wrong' accounts.
      - serverholic 4y ago
        More than that, it puts your data into your hands. If someone kicks you off a server for whatever reason you still have your account and you can visit other servers. With mastodon you’re at the mercy of whoever owns the server.
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    Non-issue. You don't have to use account portability if it doesn't work. You can use it if it does work.
- wmeredith 4y ago
  >judging by the team's background -- André Staltz with Secure Scuttlebutt, Paul Frazee with dat/Beaker/Hypercore Protocol -- I think it's pretty clear the driving motivation for much of the team behind Bluesky is not profit. Not to be overly cynical, but I just don't care. Things change. When mega-corps and investors come knocking with 10-figure checks... 99.9% of humans will cash out. It's human nature. I've invested my time and energy in many things that have been taken over and destroyed by bad/incompetent actors, virtually all of which had promising starts, or I wouldn't have gotten involved.
Kye 4y ago
The OStatus crowd made similar arguments when Mastodon added ActivityPub support. "We already have a protocol." "I don't know about this new upstart's motives." I think it's good to have competing protocols at first. Platforms will eventually consolidate on one for a while like they did AP until something new comes along. I know the BlueSky people considered building on AP, so I'm curious to hear what it lacked that they think they can improve on. It could be that some new platform enabled by that new protocol drives a transition away from AP the way Mastodon did with OStatus.
warning26 4y ago
It's an open protocol, right? So theoretically, even if the company went evil, anyone could build their own client right?

linza 4y ago

> It is owned and will be driven by a private company and it’s desire for profitability [...] I imagine that that's the exact reason why for example advertisers will opt for bluesky over mastodon immediately, under the assumption that the reach would be the same.

JustSomeNobody 4y ago

Maybe he expects Elmo to buy it and use it for Twitter 2.0?

hbn 4y ago

And if they ever plan to monetize they're gonna be at the behest of payment processors and advertisers, and will censor just like everyone else.

hgsgm 4y ago
They can't censor other people's instances. Advertisers would advertise per-instance.
- wmf 4y ago
  I assume the iOS app would have to censor all instances.

ch71r22 4y ago

Maybe their efforts will be co-opted, but judging by the team's background -- André Staltz with Secure Scuttlebutt, Paul Frazee with dat/Beaker/Hypercore Protocol -- I think it's pretty clear the driving motivation for much of the team behind Bluesky is not profit. As for why people might want to use it instead of ActivityPub, I think it's just... different from ActivityPub. Even though ActivityPub is an available option I don't see why it should be the last word. Bluesky's answer is this > Account portability is the major reason why we chose to build a separate protocol. We consider portability to be crucial because it protects users from sudden bans, server shutdowns, and policy disagreements. Our solution for portability requires both signed data repositories and DIDs, neither of which are easy to retrofit into ActivityPub. The migration tools for ActivityPub are comparatively limited; they require the original server to provide a redirect and cannot migrate the user's previous data. > Other smaller differences include: a different viewpoint about how schemas should be handled, a preference for domain usernames over AP’s double-@ email usernames, and the goal of having large scale search and discovery (rather than the hashtag style of discovery that ActivityPub favors). https://atproto.com/guides/faq#why-not-use-activitypub https://atproto.com/guides/faq#why-not-use-activitypub

smoldesu 4y ago
> We consider portability to be crucial because it protects users from sudden bans, server shutdowns, and policy disagreements I think this will have the opposite effect. Account portability means that being banned on one site can ban you on another if you try to use the same ID. Being persistently recognized across accounts seems like a net-negative for all of these things.
- serverholic 4y ago
  Same with mastodon. Your id is tied to the server so if you get banned you have to create a new id on another server. Mastodon is worse because your data is in the server owner’s hands. At least with Bluesky your identity and server are separate so you still have your data.
  - dmix 4y ago
    Exactly, it's just removing the pointless (and terrible UX) step of having to sign up again. I imagined trying to explain to my mom why she'd have to signup for Mastadon again because the server she signed up with is gone or she got on one of the massive blacklists for engaging with the 'wrong' accounts.
    - serverholic 4y ago
      More than that, it puts your data into your hands. If someone kicks you off a server for whatever reason you still have your account and you can visit other servers. With mastodon you’re at the mercy of whoever owns the server.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  Non-issue. You don't have to use account portability if it doesn't work. You can use it if it does work.
wmeredith 4y ago
>judging by the team's background -- André Staltz with Secure Scuttlebutt, Paul Frazee with dat/Beaker/Hypercore Protocol -- I think it's pretty clear the driving motivation for much of the team behind Bluesky is not profit. Not to be overly cynical, but I just don't care. Things change. When mega-corps and investors come knocking with 10-figure checks... 99.9% of humans will cash out. It's human nature. I've invested my time and energy in many things that have been taken over and destroyed by bad/incompetent actors, virtually all of which had promising starts, or I wouldn't have gotten involved.

Kye 4y ago

The OStatus crowd made similar arguments when Mastodon added ActivityPub support. "We already have a protocol." "I don't know about this new upstart's motives." I think it's good to have competing protocols at first. Platforms will eventually consolidate on one for a while like they did AP until something new comes along. I know the BlueSky people considered building on AP, so I'm curious to hear what it lacked that they think they can improve on. It could be that some new platform enabled by that new protocol drives a transition away from AP the way Mastodon did with OStatus.

warning26 4y ago

It's an open protocol, right? So theoretically, even if the company went evil, anyone could build their own client right?