There have only ever been 3 models: NNTP, email, and IRC. ActivityPub is email, that is different servers have different data. Bluesky is NNTP, that is differen

There have only ever been 3 models: NNTP, email, and IRC. ActivityPub is email, that is different servers have different data. Bluesky is NNTP, that is different servers have the same data. I think a lot of this work is cool, in particular I love the stuff cribbed from IPFS. But I think the main idea here ("we got into trouble because we took responsibility for moderation, let's at least make it possible for it to be someone else's responsibility so we can say 'hey, you might not like our moderation and that's fair; just run your own!'") doesn't address the core problems Twitter had. This structure of media heavily incentivizes shallow communication and rage bait. It divides us by reducing us to cardboard cutouts of our hottest takes and worst moments. It isn't a good idea. Making it impervious to Congressional scorn isn't a step in the right direction. But OK, stipulating I'm wrong here, it seems fully bonkers that in order to "decentralize" a platform like Twitter that each node has to have a full archive of everything. Who realistically would do this? Wouldn't it be easier to offer your own moderation algorithm or client instead? Is it supposed to protect against Elon Musk buying it too? Feels like being open source and running some replicas is easier (again, the NNTP model).