6 days ago
There has been a lot discussion about whether Bluesky is truly capable of being decentralized or not, especially considering the costs of replicating some of the centralized services that Bluesky offers. That is a valid question that is subject to debate. Technically it can be decentralized, but so far hasn't been... for a variety of reasons.
I think that Bluesky and the Fediverse look at things very differently.
When the Fediverse looks at decentralization, they think of servers and platforms that could be run by individuals or small communities. Decentralized to the level of the individual. And the fediverse community seems to be adverse to large instances, as seen by many complaints that certain Mastodon instances are becoming too large.
But Bluesky is looking at the organization level. In other words, could another large organization create another competing Twitter on the AT Protocol? Or could some organization create a Facebook or TikTok equivalent on the AT Protocol? Basically the concept of having the equivalents of Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, and TikTok all being able to talk to one another, all run by different organizations, not individuals.
Basically, how the AT Protocol becomes decentralized is when some organization creates a TikTok equivalent that uses AT Protocol, as an example, and they create their own AT Protocol stack to support it. One billionaire recently offered money to anyone who would build one.
So we are talking about different levels of decentralization here: the organizational level or the individual level.
I don't think these camps will ever agree on what decentralization means since they look at things very differently. Luckily these protocols can be bridged, and some platforms are multi-protocol, which would allow people to choose the level of decentralization they want.
#fediverse #bluesky #activitypub #atproto #atprotocol
I think that Bluesky and the Fediverse look at things very differently.
When the Fediverse looks at decentralization, they think of servers and platforms that could be run by individuals or small communities. Decentralized to the level of the individual. And the fediverse community seems to be adverse to large instances, as seen by many complaints that certain Mastodon instances are becoming too large.
But Bluesky is looking at the organization level. In other words, could another large organization create another competing Twitter on the AT Protocol? Or could some organization create a Facebook or TikTok equivalent on the AT Protocol? Basically the concept of having the equivalents of Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, and TikTok all being able to talk to one another, all run by different organizations, not individuals.
Basically, how the AT Protocol becomes decentralized is when some organization creates a TikTok equivalent that uses AT Protocol, as an example, and they create their own AT Protocol stack to support it. One billionaire recently offered money to anyone who would build one.
So we are talking about different levels of decentralization here: the organizational level or the individual level.
I don't think these camps will ever agree on what decentralization means since they look at things very differently. Luckily these protocols can be bridged, and some platforms are multi-protocol, which would allow people to choose the level of decentralization they want.
#fediverse #bluesky #activitypub #atproto #atprotocol
6 days ago
Bob Mottram of Libreserver wrote this 
https://epicyon.libreserver.org/users/bob/statuses/114251181576880920 - placing control over communications in the hands of the individual needs to be the longterm goal I think, so whatever we can do to make the tech easier and more accessible and to eliminate the middlemen, the better.
https://epicyon.libreserver.org/users/bob/statuses/114251181576880920 - placing control over communications in the hands of the individual needs to be the longterm goal I think, so whatever we can do to make the tech easier and more accessible and to eliminate the middlemen, the better.
Scott M. Stolz Mike Macgirvin 🖥️
25 days ago
In the end, I think the social web will be multi-protocol. Even though each protocol shares basic communications features, they are all trying to solve different problems.
ActivityPub is growing and lightweight. A lot of new development is going on in the form of Fediverse Enhancement Proposals (FEPs), and there is a push to create an updated specification for ActivityPub. It is a protocol that anyone can implement and run, even on inexpensive hardware.
AT Protocol has major backers, but is expensive to run in a decentralized manner. They are prioritizing experience over decentralization. Friendica supports AT Protocol, and that could be ported to Hubzilla as well, creating at least two Fediverse platforms that support both ActivityPub and AT Protocol natively. Other platforms are talking about supporting both AT Protocol and ActivityPub.
Bridgy Fed already bridges AT Protocol, ActivityPub, and websites that wish to connect to both of these networks.
Zot Protocol (Nomad version 6) will continue to be used by Hubzilla. There is no incentive to switch to ActivityPub for Hubzilla-to-Hubzilla communications since ActivityPub has less functionality than Zot and converting would be a lot of work with little benefit. Nomad protocol is up in the air since Mike is working on porting the Nomad functionality over to ActivityPub, but I hope that Hubzilla and (streams) can be made 100% compatible so that we don't have to differentiate between Zot 6 and Nomad 12 anymore.
Diaspora isn't growing, but may be expanded by Hubzilla and Friendica, which are multi-protocol platforms.
And that does not include Nostr, Secure Scuttlebutt (SSB), and other protocols that have their use cases and adherents. For example, SSB can be used offline, which is unique and useful in certain applications. Nostr can be integrated with cryptocurrency, allowing user-to-user payments.
Since they all solve different problems and have different audiences, it will be hard to get everyone adopt one protocol to rule them all.
And that is probably the best outcome. Different protocols can try out different things, and the great ideas spread across protocols. For example, a lot of the functionality in Zot and Nomad are being proposed as additions to ActivityPub. Ideas such as Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) are making their way into multiple protocols. We can all learn from each other, instead of creating one monolith protocol that tells everyone how they must operate.
I think that eventually each of these protocols will bridge basic functionality between each other. Or third parties will do it for them, as is the case with Bridgy Fed, Friendica, and to a lesser extent Hubzilla. And platforms that support multiple protocols will have an advantage over platforms that do not.
#Hubzilla #ActivityPub #nostr #bridgyfed #diaspora #Zot #Nomad #ssb #atproto
ActivityPub is growing and lightweight. A lot of new development is going on in the form of Fediverse Enhancement Proposals (FEPs), and there is a push to create an updated specification for ActivityPub. It is a protocol that anyone can implement and run, even on inexpensive hardware.
AT Protocol has major backers, but is expensive to run in a decentralized manner. They are prioritizing experience over decentralization. Friendica supports AT Protocol, and that could be ported to Hubzilla as well, creating at least two Fediverse platforms that support both ActivityPub and AT Protocol natively. Other platforms are talking about supporting both AT Protocol and ActivityPub.
Bridgy Fed already bridges AT Protocol, ActivityPub, and websites that wish to connect to both of these networks.
Zot Protocol (Nomad version 6) will continue to be used by Hubzilla. There is no incentive to switch to ActivityPub for Hubzilla-to-Hubzilla communications since ActivityPub has less functionality than Zot and converting would be a lot of work with little benefit. Nomad protocol is up in the air since Mike is working on porting the Nomad functionality over to ActivityPub, but I hope that Hubzilla and (streams) can be made 100% compatible so that we don't have to differentiate between Zot 6 and Nomad 12 anymore.
Diaspora isn't growing, but may be expanded by Hubzilla and Friendica, which are multi-protocol platforms.
And that does not include Nostr, Secure Scuttlebutt (SSB), and other protocols that have their use cases and adherents. For example, SSB can be used offline, which is unique and useful in certain applications. Nostr can be integrated with cryptocurrency, allowing user-to-user payments.
Since they all solve different problems and have different audiences, it will be hard to get everyone adopt one protocol to rule them all.
And that is probably the best outcome. Different protocols can try out different things, and the great ideas spread across protocols. For example, a lot of the functionality in Zot and Nomad are being proposed as additions to ActivityPub. Ideas such as Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) are making their way into multiple protocols. We can all learn from each other, instead of creating one monolith protocol that tells everyone how they must operate.
I think that eventually each of these protocols will bridge basic functionality between each other. Or third parties will do it for them, as is the case with Bridgy Fed, Friendica, and to a lesser extent Hubzilla. And platforms that support multiple protocols will have an advantage over platforms that do not.
#Hubzilla #ActivityPub #nostr #bridgyfed #diaspora #Zot #Nomad #ssb #atproto
25 days ago
trying to communicate with all of them is the only valid option i think. you'd never get hard-core proponents of one or the other decentralized flavour to give up their conviction and switch to another.
25 days ago
And this does not need to be a battle. We can cooperate and collaborate instead. We are trying to create a decentralized social network, after all. A single monolith protocol kinda goes against that.
25 days ago
exactly, neither a battle nor a competition. for me it's important to be able to "talk" to all, at least most of them. i can understand both, trying to keep one's focus by limiting a post's character count, or explaining things in great detail. the only thing i don't like is trying to impose one's own preference on everybody else.