Bluesky federation goes live : technology

[-] Heresy_generator@kbin.social 72 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

So... "federation" without control? What's the point?

They stress that a difference between their federation and ActivityPub is that on ActivityPub "your “instance”, or server, determines your community, so your experience depends on which server you join" while for them "On Bluesky, your experience is based on what feeds and accounts you follow, and you can always participate in the global conversation (e.g. breaking news, viral posts, and algorithmic feeds)." and "Moderation on Bluesky is not tied to your server, like it is on Mastodon. Defederation, a way of addressing moderation issues in Mastodon by disconnecting servers, is not as relevant on Bluesky because there are other layers to the system."

The big difference is that I can't choose an instance that blocks/does not interact with the servers loaded with Nazis, terrorists, and/or child abusers? Why the hell is it of such paramount importance to Jack Dorsey that the rest of us are forced to interact with Nazis?

[-] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 31 points 8 months ago

Yea I really don't understand why they list this is a benefit. But they don't really explain it fully in the post it seems.

[-] masterspace@lemmy.ca 14 points 8 months ago

Is the benefit not obvious? Your account / followers / identity is not tied to whichever instance you initially sign up for.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Microw@lemm.ee 22 points 8 months ago

Tbf from the short time I've been on bluesky it seems like their algorithms are very good, I have followed the people I'm interested in and seen 0 nazi posts so far

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] PlexSheep@feddit.de 7 points 8 months ago

I mean, if the server is running in a host you control, you can do whatever with it, no? You can just modify the software to just not do what other servers say, no?

[-] nix@merv.news 5 points 8 months ago

? You can block the entire nazi server and you will essentially be defederates from it without relying on your servers admins to do it. This makes it easier to block nazis?

[-] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 20 points 8 months ago

So every new user needs to block all the nazi servers themselves before they get a non-nazi feed?

The whole point of joining a server that defederates nasty stuff for you is that you delegate that responsibility to someone you trust to handle moderation for you. Just like you trust community mods or the admins of your instance on Lemmy.

[-] eupraxia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 8 months ago

To be fair, Bluesky does have "blocklists" maintained by other users that you can opt into, and quite a few popular ones exist with active maintainers who take and act on reports pretty quickly. So you still can delegate moderation responsibilities. One advantage to this is that you can opt into a few blocklists based on what you personally want to block - separate lists exist for hateful bigots, crypto pushers, and so on. I gave it a shot out of curiosity and haven't run into any issues yet, but that's just me.

I still prefer Mastodon for broader AP integration, and I think blocklists aren't discoverable enough outside of word of mouth, but I am curious to see how that turns out for Bluesky. Certainly an improvement over Xitter imo.

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] nix@merv.news 10 points 8 months ago

Servers will likely be able to have recommended block lists and default block lists you can opt out of. Federation was literally just announced i think its fair to give it time for them to improve it. I think users having the option is better look at cases like mastodon.art that defederates from servers constantly and none of the users ever know who or why theyre defederating

[-] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 8 points 8 months ago

Most users don't want to care about moderation like that. Users may care to block stuff they're not interested in like "I'm not interested in soccer so I'll block the soccer server/community". Most users don't want to even think about seeing the kind of content most reasonable ActivityPub servers defederate from. There's also often a legal risk if you don't defederate as what constitute legal content depends on a servers location.

look at cases like mastodon.art that defederates from servers constantly and none of the users ever know who or why theyre defederating

If users don't like servers that indiscriminately defederates from others, they are free to go to other servers. This is not a bug, this is a feature.

[-] nix@merv.news 12 points 8 months ago

Idk what to tell you. If you prefer how it is on activitypub then use activitypub. I barely ever use bluesky and mainly use lemmy snd mastodon. I think having no say in who you’re defedersted from sucks. Its why lemmy lets users block a server now even though mastodon doesnt. This is good.

Lol “just leave the art server” is terrible for artists and also 90% of people have no idea what defederating is and wont ever know theyre defederated from X server. I think its way better for servers to set their default blocklists that block the server they dont like and users to be able to choose to opt out of them, add more blocklists, etc.

[-] Piece_Maker@feddit.uk 7 points 8 months ago

Its why lemmy lets users block a server now even though mastodon doesnt.

As someone who had to switch away from mastodon.art because my pool of federated instances was getting so small it felt pointless to be on a federated platform... I'm SO glad Lemmy takes this approach. I don't mind my instance having some control over who they federate with (I have zero interest in seeing actual nazi comment or CP for example) but if my instance blocked lemmy.world or another similarly large one I'd definitely be a bit screwed (mastodon.art defederated mastodon.social for a time!)

[-] aeharding@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

without relying on your servers admins to do it

But I want to rely on my server admins for that. To me that's a feature, not a bug.

[-] micka190@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

We had a thing a while back on Lemmy where a bunch of semi-popular instances (including lemmy.world, though they seem to have rolled that back) all defederated from instances that mentioned piracy. I don't have a problem with piracy. I want to talk about piracy.

If Lemmy ran on a system like Bluesky's, I wouldn't have needed to consider making a new account on another instance just because me and the admins disagree on what we want to see on Lemmy.

I get your point, I just think It's a matter of preference, at the end of the day.

[-] aeharding@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

We had a thing a while back on Lemmy where a bunch of semi-popular instances (including lemmy.world, though they seem to have rolled that back) all defederated from instances that mentioned piracy. I don’t have a problem with piracy. I want to talk about piracy.

To me, that is a feature, too. The admin team made a decision, and the community engaged, the topic was discussed, and the decision was changed. To me that's a very healthy process. The only thing I would've changed would be LW engaging the community before defederating, but they were understandably worried about legal implications.

Even if LW didn't reverse this decision, you can change instances. Lemmy 0.19 makes this easier with import/export, but I would argue it should be even easier. Ultimately though this is a lemmy implementation detail, and not an activitypub problem.

[-] masterspace@lemmy.ca 8 points 8 months ago

Your ignoring the thrust of their point:

If you disagree with your instance or want to leave it for whatever reason, you have to wipe your identity and create a new one.

That is in no way a feature, just a hindrance.

load more comments (17 replies)

[-] Heresy_generator@kbin.social 5 points 8 months ago

Can you block entire servers, though? Do you have the ability to even tell content apart based on server of origin? It's not clear that you can and the implication seems to be that the only thing you get out of hosting your own server is hosting your own data; it doesn't seem to offer you any sort of control over federation.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] merthyr1831@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Users have to maintain public blocklists to deal with poor moderation from BSky HQ. For the most part, it works, but if you get on the bad side of anyone running a list you're basically at the mercy of them not using their lists for personal vendettas. When that does happen, all it does is dilute the usefulness of said blocklists and in turn lets the bad actors back into the mix as people unsubscribe.

I guess it's an immature system and maybe people will create services to maintain lists with proper accountability, appeals, etc. but that's just trying to skirt around the main issue which is that Bluesky LLC is not interested in federating the backend service.

As for their "you can't interact with viral posts" claim, that's only a Mastodon problem - IMO they designed their feed system really shitty for a service trying to imitate Twitter. On Lemmy, I can easily see active posts across dozens of instances without having to subscribe to them, and the communities of those instances have a right to decide who does and doesn't federate. We've successfully sectioned off troublesome communities, without turning the entire network into a fragmented map of isolation.

I would like activitypub to better support instances that do nothing but host personal data without having to also technically be a full platform (ie. those tiny masto/lemmy instances for people who dont wanna make accounts on someone else's server). But for the regular user the current AP system is way better than what BSKY offers.

That being said, I like Bluesky and its community, I just dont think it deserves to be "fediverse".

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Fake4000@lemmy.world 37 points 8 months ago

I actually though they would federate with something like mastodon.

Kinda useless really.

[-] Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

They were clear from the start they they were doing bsky in part because they didn't like ActivityPub as a protocol.

I mean, I'm sure they really just wanted to control the protocol development more than anything, not liking the protocol was what they said. It was meant to be a direct competitor to Mastodon from day one.

[-] airportline@lemmy.ml 12 points 8 months ago

There's an upcoming project to bridge Mastodon, nostr, and Bluesky, but it's not out yet.

[-] MentallyExhausted@reddthat.com 28 points 8 months ago

It’s not referring to the Fediverse and ActivityPub, it’s their own thing.

[-] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 22 points 8 months ago

Wait so, who are they federating with? Nobody yet I guess until someone starts new servers using their protocol?

[-] psychothumbs@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

Yes that's right

[-] airportline@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It always bugged me when the CEO referred to Bluesky as part of the fediverse because that's only technically true with projects like Bridgy Fed.

[-] PoliticallyIncorrect@lemmy.world 23 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

[removed by mod]

[-] HarkMahlberg@kbin.social 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

This is the same criticism that was made of cryptocurrency's claim to fame regarding decentralization, consensus, and resilience to authoritarian takeover.

"If you take all these different parts of your identity, all the games you play, all the things you buy, all the groups you join, and stick them into one system, that's a central system. It doesn't matter how many servers that system spans, you've pooled all that data in one place."

And ultimately we can make the same criticism of the Fediverse itself. It's nice that there are different platforms, different instances, different communities... but it's still just one entity at the end of the day. This is especially apparent with the spam wave we just saw. Misskey, Mastodon, Lemmy, even kbin was not invulnerable. You don't need to attack them individually, you can attack them all at once, and then they will naturally spread your attack to other instances for you.

[-] airportline@lemmy.ml 7 points 8 months ago

Bluesky is uniquely un-private. For instance, you can see who blocks who.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] clot27@lemm.ee 14 points 8 months ago

Why not just use AP? who else will use their protocol? also it doesnt even seem "federation" for real as other users pointed out here

[-] aeharding@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago

Why not just use AP?

https://urbanists.video/w/n7xyeV1kbW8mUKr4ncchhs

That blusky didn't use [activitypub] is so typical of these companies. It's like the lightning cable when everyone else is using USB-C. Fuck you apple, and your shitty plug. And fuck you blusky and your reinvention of the wheel. Use the standard you egotistical F$*!4.

[-] nix@merv.news 8 points 8 months ago

Im confused why people are confused that they announced federation without having servers to federate with? It literally just got announced why would people expect there to already be big servers for them to federate with?

[-] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 6 points 8 months ago

Because why would you federate using your own protocol when there's a perfectly viable protocol (ActivityPub) that you could use instead and you could federate with the whole Fediverse from day 1.

[-] nix@merv.news 15 points 8 months ago

Because they want to make a better protocol? Yeah it sucks theyre not compatible but i dont really blame them when activitypub hasn’t received updates in a very very long time. I mistrust bluesky since theyre VC funded but i also appreciate the new features theyre doing and hope it causes activitypub to improve.

[-] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I don't really know what they think they can improve, but trying to improve ActivityPub is probably a more sustainable route than just starting a new protocol. Breaking changes and all that.

I also really don't trust them - I suspect they went for their own protocol because really they just want to be the biggest server in their own semi-closed garden.

It's for-profit right? Enshittification is just a matter of time.

[-] dgriffith@aussie.zone 5 points 8 months ago

As soon as they mentioned "algorithmic feeds and viral content", not interested.

You get "viral content" because of algorithmic feeds, which are there to 1) keep you engaged on the platform, and 2) allow them to push sponsored content to you for profit.

Even the word "feed" in this kind of context just reminds me of cows at a feedlot, mindlessly munching down on whatever garbage is piped into the trough, slowly being fattened up to be sold off to the highest bidder.

There are days when I get on here and there's not much of anything interesting in my communities and you know what? I'm fine with that. I put the phone down and do something else. I don't need an endless torrent of "content" to surf courtesy of an algorithmic feed that doesn't have my best interests at heart.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] poVoq@slrpnk.net 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It's enshittified right in the design of the protocol. The entire idea of ATproto is to decentralize the annoying (& legally tricky) stuff like identity management and moderation, while keeping the profitable stuff (advertisement embedded in algorithmic feeds) more or less centralized.

And even though they are quite open about that in their technical documentation, somehow people fail to see it for what it is and think this would be somehow to their own benefit.

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] Caligvla@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 8 months ago

Outside of bluesky who's even using their protocol? Such a weird way of doing things when AP is already a thing...

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

No one, but it hasn’t really been open to others. This is all new.

[-] greaprr@sh.itjust.works 7 points 8 months ago

I can never find a straight answer to this - which may be the answer in and of itself - but do they plan to federate with anyone besides themselves in the future?

[-] jayandp@sh.itjust.works 8 points 8 months ago

They aren't using ActivityPub, what Mastodon and Lemmy use, they're using their own new protocol called AT (Authenticated Transfer). So it's less that they don't plan on federating with anybody else, and more that there's nobody to federate with. Maybe somebody else might pickup AT in the future, but AT is still a work in progress and there isn't a lot of incentive for anybody to do so yet.

[-] psychothumbs@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

I believe the idea is that they're not federating with any other existing site, they're creating a new variety of federation with themselves as the first member, with people being able to set themselves up as additional independent nodes in that federation.

[-] MysticKetchup@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

So Federation lets you move your data, but that's it? It still has global moderation and from what it sounds like all accounts are still dependent on the original BlueSky server to login. So if it goes down, doesn't that just take all servers with it?

[-] gashead76@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

It is more complicated than that. There are multiple different server components that make up Bluesky and its federation. The PDS (Person Data Server) is what they’re mostly talking about in that press release. You can however run all three major server components yourself and setup a completely separate network that would then federate with Bluesky proper. It’s quite different to Mastodon and other ActivityPub services (where you setup a Mastodon, Lemmy, WriteFreely, etc… instance and then federate).

Still, at present it does feel a little pointless.

Technology

Our Rules

Approved Bots