4 ms·

Bluesky is an open protocol

malermeister 3y ago
But why isn't the whole thing just an activitypub client? It seems like it's an open protocol in the same way OOXML was an open format.
- caslon 3y ago
  ActivityPub wasn't the first federated web discussions protocol. It isn't even a good one. Given how few users use ActivityPub-based services, it makes sense to experiment while the window is open.
- brundolf 3y ago
  It has no overlap with ActivityPub, it's an entirely separate protocol
- edavis 3y ago
  During the early days of what would become Bluesky, they first reviewed the available options for decentralized public communications and nothing out there checked all the boxes. So they moved forward building something completely new that did. I wrote a comment last week diving more into this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38660192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38660192
- jakebsky 3y ago
  This is a very reasonable and common question (I asked it myself before joining the team) 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 https://atproto.com/guides/faq
  - pierat 3y ago
    Also, I'll gladly eat some humble pie when BSky is actually opened for 3rd parties and federation. I just know I've been burnt, as have many colleagues, on expanding companies stuff. And then them modifying/eliminating APIs. It also is a PITA that "Open" is now a buzzword, rather than FLOSS. (For example, I'd call OpenAI anything but open.)
h0l0cube 3y ago
And by the looks of the sign up process you can make your own provider, or move your data to another 3rd party at will
- tedunangst 3y ago
  What are some of the top alternative providers?
  - danabramov 3y ago
    Federation isn't actually opened up yet but the team is planning to open it up in early 2024.

But why isn't the whole thing just an activitypub client? It seems like it's an open protocol in the same way OOXML was an open format.

caslon 3y ago
ActivityPub wasn't the first federated web discussions protocol. It isn't even a good one. Given how few users use ActivityPub-based services, it makes sense to experiment while the window is open.
brundolf 3y ago
It has no overlap with ActivityPub, it's an entirely separate protocol
edavis 3y ago
During the early days of what would become Bluesky, they first reviewed the available options for decentralized public communications and nothing out there checked all the boxes. So they moved forward building something completely new that did. I wrote a comment last week diving more into this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38660192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38660192
jakebsky 3y ago
This is a very reasonable and common question (I asked it myself before joining the team) 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 https://atproto.com/guides/faq
- pierat 3y ago
  Also, I'll gladly eat some humble pie when BSky is actually opened for 3rd parties and federation. I just know I've been burnt, as have many colleagues, on expanding companies stuff. And then them modifying/eliminating APIs. It also is a PITA that "Open" is now a buzzword, rather than FLOSS. (For example, I'd call OpenAI anything but open.)

h0l0cube 3y ago

And by the looks of the sign up process you can make your own provider, or move your data to another 3rd party at will

tedunangst 3y ago
What are some of the top alternative providers?
- danabramov 3y ago
  Federation isn't actually opened up yet but the team is planning to open it up in early 2024.