3 ms·
> This is why Bluesky could never have "private likes" in the same way Twitter or ActivityPub does I didn't know "private likes" even existed, but if atproto i
by frumiousirc 1y ago
> This is why Bluesky could never have "private likes" in the same way Twitter or ActivityPub does
I didn't know "private likes" even existed, but if atproto includes public key encryption, I could publish a record containing a "like" that I have encrypted with the "liked" user's public key. Only that user would know what the record contained. Though, the fact that the encrypted message exists and had a cleartext "@name" is itself informative to adversaries. Concealing that level of info would require other measures.
- nightpool 1y agoCorrect. All information in the system is part of a public, append-only ledger. That's the thing I'm pointing out is a fundamental weakness of the system.
- binbasti 1y ago... if Bluesky users owned their private key.
- goku12 1y agoI think the lack of owner's custody of the private key in bluesky is more the result of a convenience design than of a technical limitation. If the user is expected to manage the private key, you might end up with something similar in complexity to Nostr. But it might still be possible if you're running your own PDS.
- steveklabnik 1y agoYou don’t need to run your own PDS, the key that matters is the rotation key for plc.directory.