Recent searches
Search options
I’m not a big fan of Bluesky. I don’t see the point and everything I want is already working on the Fediverse/Mastodon. But many people enjoy Bluesky. Some of those are really good and smart people. I agree with a lot of the points that @pluralistic makes in this piece.
https://pluralistic.net/2025/01/14/contesting-popularity/#everybody-samba
@johl I see @pluralistic 's points, however why not both? Why not build something that works with BlueSky and can federate with both BlueSky (AT) and activitypub? Would allow for maximum flexibility.
@danimo @johl @pluralistic what would be the benefit of having multiple federation protocols? Different servers with different moderation and federation policies, I understand, but two protocols to support sounds like a lot of extra tech debt to maintain for no discernible benefit.
@pluralistic @danimo @johl fair enough, but I have a hard time seeing any federation bridge being maintained on the Bluesky side if and when their management does turn on them. It sounds like setting people up for a rug pull.
It would be nice if Free our Feeds encouraged people to setup accounts on the already extant service that is functionally federated today rather than mention it in a footnote while hyping up the idea that Bluesky will be federated Any Day Now.
@pluralistic @marcusb @danimo @johl I keep waiting for one of you to say “you know, like @bsky.brid.gy does.” I realize that it’s an add-on, but from what I can tell it will allow us to “enjoy the BlueSky party.” Am I missing something?
@graymiller @marcusb @danimo @johl @bsky.brid.gy
I use Bridgy Fed. It's effectively just a mirror, no? You effectively have no control over the bridged account. But it's a good way in having your finger in both pies (as long as both services exist).
I think @pluralistic explicitly wanted to talk about fire escapes/exits which is why he didn't bring it up. But this is an invaluable first step IMO.
@MidniteMikeWrites @graymiller @danimo @johl @bsky.brid.gy @pluralistic I get the fire exit angle, I just don't see how it is supposed to work in practice. The inescapable problem with federating Bluesky after the fact is that it didn't start out federated, and now they have almost every one of the 20M+ users on *their PDS/relay/appview infrastructure*.
Adding federation now won't change that, and having third-party federation isn't going to keep a potentially evil future 1/2
@MidniteMikeWrites @graymiller @danimo @johl @bsky.brid.gy @pluralistic Bluesky from holding their users hostage. You need a real network effect with multiple instances holding a significant portion of the user base to keep bad actors in check. Mastodon has that. Bluesky does not. What will be the motivation for a substantial number of Bluesky users -- who seem to not really care about a lack of federation -- to move to this new infrastructure and create that network effect? 2/2
@marcusb @MidniteMikeWrites @danimo @johl @bsky.brid.gy @pluralistic " You need a real network effect with multiple instances holding a significant portion of the user base to keep bad actors in check. Mastodon has that. Bluesky does not." yes. This, exactly.
@graymiller that service is great, but it requires that both the fediverse and the bluesky accounts opt in to the bridge. I've convinced exactly one of the climate folks who migrated to bluesky to bridge; the others are out of reach.
@derek yeah, same -- though I think it can be a one-way mirror? That is, my bluesky friends who follow my bridged account can see my posts, but if they don't also bridge their accounts I can't see them from a mastodon account.
I also have only convinced one person to bridge back to me, but both the people I asked followed my bridged account.
I hope I don't get the opportunity to say "I told you so" in a year...