> ATProto isn't "built this way". ATProto is built this way. "Closing off bluesky" would be an extraordinarily non-trivial process and would break basically ev

> ATProto isn't "built this way". ATProto is built this way. "Closing off bluesky" would be an extraordinarily non-trivial process and would break basically everything. This is in large part why private data isn't a thing yet. The architecture is diametrically opposed to it. > Bluesky could decide to stop publishing the firehose or restrict its APIs - just as Twitter did. They could "technically" completely rearchitect their application frontend and backend to do this but any effort to do so would be visible from miles away given the architecture and warning claxons would start ringing immediately. > And Bluesky is a for-profit company that has raised around $30M in VC. Bluesky PBLLC is a for-profit "public benefit corporation" for what it's worth and the way they are structured would open them up to legal consequences if they were to move diametrically opposed to the mission they were founded on. Not just because they are a PBLLC but because their initial investment funding was drawn up under an explicit contract that views moves against "the development of decentralised social media" as a violation of the terms of that contract.