Bluesky, which uses it, has been opened to federation now, and the standard basically just looks better than ActivityPub. Has anyone heard about a project to make a Lemmy-style “link aggregator” service on it?

  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    ha, no… bluesky is not open to federation. they control the only router and do not allow connectivity to routers not controlled by them.

    there isnt a single non-bluesky controlled instance that can federate natively with bluesky.

    bluesky is just twitter with a little more user-controllable data sourcing. not that theres anything wrong with that, but its certainly not a part of any federation.

    e. suggested reading: https://dustycloud.org/blog/how-decentralized-is-bluesky/

      • rglullis@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        And they are either in for one of the following:

        • a $30 Million lesson where they learn that they will have to reinvent ActivityPub in order to be “properly” decentralized
        • a rug pull where they come up with a second relay like Bluesky but fork to give exclusive access for large institutions and the enterprise.
        • jackalope@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          There are important features that ATPro has that activity pub doesn’t. I’d prefer activity pub be the winner but they really need to improve some things. Namely, identity. Bluesky identity is more portable.

          • rglullis@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            We still don’t need ATProto for that. ActivityPods solves that.

            ActivityPub itself is built around the principle that the server owns your identity: the best you can do is abandon an identity (i.e, your actor URL) and tell everyone else (via the Move Activity) that you are adopting a new identity.

        • MysticKetchup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 hours ago

          It’s ridiculous they were asking for $30m to do something that ActivityPub already does. Wasted money that could have gone anywhere else

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Yep. What do you think the chances are you could write something that does the job of the router and app view, but in a totally off-standard, more point-to-point way?

          In the meanwhile, it’s just a matter of bridging, I guess.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      It’s a good blog post, thanks. I made a quick summery elsewhere in the thread.

      It’s really unfortunate that we’ve ended up with two populated protocols for federation, both of which have a major flaw. In our case, it’s no established support for moving accounts. In theirs, its a component that’s so bulky the federatability is questionable (and no federated DMs).

      • rah@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 hour ago

        both of which have a major flaw

        What major flaw do you believe ActivityPub has?