I feel like I may be missing something when it comes to BlueSky, or maybe both I and those trying it out are but in different ways. My understanding is that BlueSky is currently like the Mastodon Social instance is for Mastodon but of the AT Protocol under development, with the long term aim being that once their protocol is sufficiently developed to their liking, they'll put out the version capable of federation for others to spin up their own instances with.

However, once they do that, won't it basically create some of the same problems people already have with ActivityPub, i.e. instance choice, federation confusion, etc.?

What's supposed to set it apart and address existing issues rather than reinvent things and add their own distinct issues?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I believe you've arrived at the crux of the issue

[–] half_built_pyramids@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's almost like federation and everything that comes with it -- plusses and minuses -- is the point.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

At this point BlueSky had better make free liquor and hot BBQ come out of your computer if they want people to adopt it. I could be wrong, it could be real attractive, but I feel like there's so much momentum built around ActivityPub that they're by now fated to abandon AT for ActivityPub whether they want to or not, or else go the way of CompuServe.

[–] skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]