@dansup We're stronger together, Dan. It's not worth throwing stones.
Uncategorized
243
Posts
50
Posters
0
Views
-
@mastodonmigration @baralheia if an independent element decides to not cooperate, you just route around. Sure, you may have a temporary outage, but it's manageable.
For example, a popular labeler for pronouns on bluesky went offline the other day. Within 24 hours, Blacksky had shipped native pronouns support within their social app.
@mastodonmigration @baralheia Is it really decentralized if, for most people, their identity (i.e., handle) is tied to a domain that they don't control (because they don't want to operate social apps, they just want to use them), and migrating from one provider to another looses all their data apart from their follow graph (which still looses some data)
(sure, LOLA might help with this, maybe, but it's just a technical demo right now)
-
@mastodonmigration @baralheia if an independent element decides to not cooperate, you just route around. Sure, you may have a temporary outage, but it's manageable.
For example, a popular labeler for pronouns on bluesky went offline the other day. Within 24 hours, Blacksky had shipped native pronouns support within their social app.
Seems like we are losing focus here. If the model is one principly centralized platform where satellites offload and contribute resources many interesting things are possible, and it may be a more fun and interesting development environment, but it is still dependent on the centralized platform.
Real decentralization is hard, but the advantage is true node independence. If real decentralization is not the operative model, then it should not be the marketing slogan.
-
@mastodonmigration @baralheia Is it really decentralized if, for most people, their identity (i.e., handle) is tied to a domain that they don't control (because they don't want to operate social apps, they just want to use them), and migrating from one provider to another looses all their data apart from their follow graph (which still looses some data)
(sure, LOLA might help with this, maybe, but it's just a technical demo right now)
Short answer is yes. Decentralization has nothing to do with keeping some universal identifier or address. In fact, keeping a universal handle is kind of a centralized concept since some central authority must adjudicate the name.
-
@mastodonmigration @baralheia @cwebber no, I mean, processing 2.4 billion posts, 3.4 billion follows, and 13.6 billion likes is a metric shittone of data to process. Serving up feeds to 42 million users (10-15 million monthly active) requires a lot of processing.
Stats from: https://bsky.jazco.dev/stats
It's not even talking about communication at a network layer between PDSes, Relays, and AppViews. That's a different matter, which is where Christine was mostly talking, iirc.
@thisismissem I'm sorry, where is the MAU from? I don't see it on the page you linked to.
https://bluefacts.app/bluesky-user-growth reports 5.36M (excluding users who don't interact with posts).
-
@mastodonmigration @baralheia Is it really decentralized if, for most people, their identity (i.e., handle) is tied to a domain that they don't control (because they don't want to operate social apps, they just want to use them), and migrating from one provider to another looses all their data apart from their follow graph (which still looses some data)
(sure, LOLA might help with this, maybe, but it's just a technical demo right now)
Want to thank you again for having this discussion. Fully recognize that what AT Proto folks prioritize in network architecture are not the same capabilities that ActivityPub boosters prioritize, and that it is frustrating to have this conversation here. Feel like we did make progress in clarifying and kind of agreeing about some of the respective characteristics of each protocol.
-
Seems like we are losing focus here. If the model is one principly centralized platform where satellites offload and contribute resources many interesting things are possible, and it may be a more fun and interesting development environment, but it is still dependent on the centralized platform.
Real decentralization is hard, but the advantage is true node independence. If real decentralization is not the operative model, then it should not be the marketing slogan.
@mastodonmigration @baralheia AT Protocol is decentralised in that you can run the parts yourself, if you *really* want to, but you don't *need* to.
Needing to run everything yourself has a massive cost associated with it, and relies on a tonne of volunteer labour to provide infrastructure, moderation, etc.
Just because we *choose* to share resources, does not make it centralised. We can also *choose* to not share resources, which is what Blacksky has done for microblogging on AT Protocol. They have features Bluesky doesn't have. They run completely independently at all levels of infrastructure*.
There is an * here, because they are currently choosing to consume the Bluesky Moderation Service's data alongside with their own moderation service, because that provides significant value to them at this time (I'm assuming that's the reason)
Decentralisation doesn't mean I need to host everything myself. It means I can if I want to.
We'd all say Email is a pretty decentralised network, even though majority of people are with like four different dominant providers. ActivityPub is generally equated to email in a lot of explanations.
"Real decentralisation" isn't a thing people – normal people – want nor care about. They want better social apps that don't lock them in. They don't care about servers, federation, message passing, blah blah blah.
Sure, you can focus on "how hard is it to run the entire network by yourself on a raspberry pi" and for majority of people that is impossible. Sure, they could learn, but it's just not something that they *want* to learn typically.
-
@thisismissem I'm sorry, where is the MAU from? I don't see it on the page you linked to.
https://bluefacts.app/bluesky-user-growth reports 5.36M (excluding users who don't interact with posts).
@stefan it comes from @laurenshof.
-
@mastodonmigration @baralheia AT Protocol is decentralised in that you can run the parts yourself, if you *really* want to, but you don't *need* to.
Needing to run everything yourself has a massive cost associated with it, and relies on a tonne of volunteer labour to provide infrastructure, moderation, etc.
Just because we *choose* to share resources, does not make it centralised. We can also *choose* to not share resources, which is what Blacksky has done for microblogging on AT Protocol. They have features Bluesky doesn't have. They run completely independently at all levels of infrastructure*.
There is an * here, because they are currently choosing to consume the Bluesky Moderation Service's data alongside with their own moderation service, because that provides significant value to them at this time (I'm assuming that's the reason)
Decentralisation doesn't mean I need to host everything myself. It means I can if I want to.
We'd all say Email is a pretty decentralised network, even though majority of people are with like four different dominant providers. ActivityPub is generally equated to email in a lot of explanations.
"Real decentralisation" isn't a thing people – normal people – want nor care about. They want better social apps that don't lock them in. They don't care about servers, federation, message passing, blah blah blah.
Sure, you can focus on "how hard is it to run the entire network by yourself on a raspberry pi" and for majority of people that is impossible. Sure, they could learn, but it's just not something that they *want* to learn typically.
Fair enough. Would just add that a key characteristic of a protocol is the 'cost' of 'running everything by yourself.' If that cost is very high then there is a significant barrier to real in practice decentralization. Alternately, network protocols with a lower independent node cost will achieve effective decentralization more rapidly and with greater distribution.
-
Want to thank you again for having this discussion. Fully recognize that what AT Proto folks prioritize in network architecture are not the same capabilities that ActivityPub boosters prioritize, and that it is frustrating to have this conversation here. Feel like we did make progress in clarifying and kind of agreeing about some of the respective characteristics of each protocol.
@mastodonmigration @baralheia the root argument here is that none of us are actually fighting each other, as Bluesky grows, so does the fediverse. We're fighting the big tech companies like Meta, Google and TikTok.
Fighting which decentralisation or social protocol is better doesn't serve anyone on any protocol. It just strokes egos and makes tribalism feel good.
I regularly see posts on the fediverse that are trying to fight AT Protocol. I never see the same from the AT Protocol developer community back at ActivityPub: we've recognised that fight is frankly not serving anyone.
People don't care about protocols. Ain't no one going "ewww, you use IMAP? That's so lame, you should use JMAP" because no one cares. They care about what features their email app has and if it sends emails and receives them. Maybe they care about data being hosted in EU vs US, maybe.
-
Fair enough. Would just add that a key characteristic of a protocol is the 'cost' of 'running everything by yourself.' If that cost is very high then there is a significant barrier to real in practice decentralization. Alternately, network protocols with a lower independent node cost will achieve effective decentralization more rapidly and with greater distribution.
@mastodonmigration @baralheia well, like I said before, no one has to run an AppView for 42 million people. It's a choice. There's a way to interact with the protocol and be social without needing to do that. Konbini, Red dwarf, etc all provide alternatives.
-
@mastodonmigration @baralheia the root argument here is that none of us are actually fighting each other, as Bluesky grows, so does the fediverse. We're fighting the big tech companies like Meta, Google and TikTok.
Fighting which decentralisation or social protocol is better doesn't serve anyone on any protocol. It just strokes egos and makes tribalism feel good.
I regularly see posts on the fediverse that are trying to fight AT Protocol. I never see the same from the AT Protocol developer community back at ActivityPub: we've recognised that fight is frankly not serving anyone.
People don't care about protocols. Ain't no one going "ewww, you use IMAP? That's so lame, you should use JMAP" because no one cares. They care about what features their email app has and if it sends emails and receives them. Maybe they care about data being hosted in EU vs US, maybe.
Honestly, it has nothing to do with fighting each other. The concern is the continued dependence of AT Proto on Bluesky PBC, and what happens if the management of the company asserts an agenda. But, that is a discussion for another forum.
-
@mastodonmigration @baralheia @cwebber well, that's the thing: the network topology does not match that.
Sure, I could run a relay and an appview and a PDS if I really wanted to, but I don't *need* to.
That's where folks are stumbling because they think they *need* to run the entire network topology or stack, which just doesn't make a whole lot of sense for individuals to do.
Instead we pool resources and work together. It's kinda like how there's been the ideas in the ActivityPub ecosystem for ages for a shared media CDN and a shared link resolver for link previews, and even shared moderation infrastructure.
Running everything gets complicated and expensive as the network grows, whether that's AT Protocol or ActivityPub.
@thisismissem @mastodonmigration @cwebber Personally, I don't agree. I'm not at all saying that pooling resources is bad - far from it, actually, because every instance on the Fediverse both large and small is a shared resource (excluding those that are single-user instances, naturally) - but I also think it's vitally important that the network is built with the expectation that individuals CAN and SHOULD be able to own their own *full* slice of the pie, do so easily and cheaply, and be able to expect to have a reasonably similar user experience (even if it's not a global view). US and global politics being what they are right now, combined with seeing how Twitter enshittified the way it did, it is *massively* important to me that my social network is difficult to manipulate or control. 12 relays are much easier to exert some level of control over vs 43k+ active servers in the Fediverse (https://fedidb.com). Same goes for the independent appviews, however many of those are out there. I may technically have choice, but the limited number of relays and AppViews that are fully independent from Bsky is still a liability - and the current architecture makes it more difficult for an individual to manage.
Meanwhile, if I need to have full control over my stack in the Fediverse, all I gotta do is set up a server and throw Mastodon on it. Boom, done. I'm running fully independently now. The only external dependencies would be on the instances hosting the accounts I wish to follow. Hell I could even run this on some really limited hardware and still have a reasonably cromulent user experience.
The idea is not necessarily that such a setup should be the default - but that it should be easily possible when desired or necessary. Make the components of the network so easy and cheap to stand up yourself that it becomes supremely resilient in the face of hostile actors - anyone can stand one up with a minimum of resources. That ease of hosting also makes it easy and fun to play with and hack on and innovate from.
-
Honestly, it has nothing to do with fighting each other. The concern is the continued dependence of AT Proto on Bluesky PBC, and what happens if the management of the company asserts an agenda. But, that is a discussion for another forum.
@mastodonmigration @baralheia right, like, for instance, the IETF where protocol development is moving to, as we're in the final stages of setting up a working group there: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/atp/about/
There's plenty of people building in the protocol who don't use anything related to Bluesky (none of their code, alternative relays, etc).
Bluesky PBC has designed the protocol and its layers to prevent Bluesky PBC from asserting anything over the whole network.
Though, Mastodon, whew, they asserted webfinger on everyone in ActivityPub.
-
Short answer is yes. Decentralization has nothing to do with keeping some universal identifier or address. In fact, keeping a universal handle is kind of a centralized concept since some central authority must adjudicate the name.
@mastodonmigration @thisismissem Agreed with this for the most part, though I would say that the containerized identity concept is something I do actually really like about ATproto. There's been some work to bring this to ActivityPub via the ActivityPods proposal, and I hope that continues. But identity portability in the same manner as ATproto is not necessary for decentralization in my personal opinion. It's more about making it simple for anyone to participate in the network, so even if there is a dominant player and they suddenly disappear into the ether the network still can carry on without them.
-
@thisismissem @mastodonmigration @cwebber Personally, I don't agree. I'm not at all saying that pooling resources is bad - far from it, actually, because every instance on the Fediverse both large and small is a shared resource (excluding those that are single-user instances, naturally) - but I also think it's vitally important that the network is built with the expectation that individuals CAN and SHOULD be able to own their own *full* slice of the pie, do so easily and cheaply, and be able to expect to have a reasonably similar user experience (even if it's not a global view). US and global politics being what they are right now, combined with seeing how Twitter enshittified the way it did, it is *massively* important to me that my social network is difficult to manipulate or control. 12 relays are much easier to exert some level of control over vs 43k+ active servers in the Fediverse (https://fedidb.com). Same goes for the independent appviews, however many of those are out there. I may technically have choice, but the limited number of relays and AppViews that are fully independent from Bsky is still a liability - and the current architecture makes it more difficult for an individual to manage.
Meanwhile, if I need to have full control over my stack in the Fediverse, all I gotta do is set up a server and throw Mastodon on it. Boom, done. I'm running fully independently now. The only external dependencies would be on the instances hosting the accounts I wish to follow. Hell I could even run this on some really limited hardware and still have a reasonably cromulent user experience.
The idea is not necessarily that such a setup should be the default - but that it should be easily possible when desired or necessary. Make the components of the network so easy and cheap to stand up yourself that it becomes supremely resilient in the face of hostile actors - anyone can stand one up with a minimum of resources. That ease of hosting also makes it easy and fun to play with and hack on and innovate from.
@baralheia @mastodonmigration that's the thing: we're comparing apples to oranges.
Yes, it is expensive and complicated to run an entire appview for 42 million users and process billions of records/events. Just like it's expensive to run hachyderm or mastodon.social (granted they're perhaps cheaper because they're a hundredth the size)
You're comparing your mastodon server which does a slice of a pie, with a bluesky appview that does the entire fucking pie, where your slice is less than 10% of the network.
Of course that is different. Anyone can see that's different, I would hope.
Like I've repeatedly said: you can run the whole pie if you want to, but you don't need to, and in fact, some people have decided that they want to, like Blacksky, and Eurosky (but they're not there yet)
The number of relays can always grow. The number of PDSes can always grow. Same with the number of independent app views. I have my own appview, but it doesn't do microblogging or bluesky stuff, because that's not what my app is about.
When 43k+ servers are 71.1% Mastodon and 11% Pixelfed (by active accounts), or ~30% each Wordpress and Ghost and 20% Mastodon by number of servers, are you really in full control? Sure, you can operate the software, but is that really "control"?
The "control" we say we have only makes us "feel good", if mastodon.social decided to defederate from you, would your Mastodon experience be the same? (you wouldn't have been able to see a significant part of this conversation, since they run mastodon.online too)
AT Protocol can scale down too: https://bsky.bad-example.com/can-atproto-scale-down/
The components of AT Protocol are cheap to run, PDSes and Relays both run on commodity hardware. It's the full-network aware AppView that is a specialized piece of software, but even without that you can still interact with the network, see Red Dwarf: https://reddwarf.app/
I guarantee you there are way more people hacking with AT Protocol than ActivityPub-based systems. The Mastodon codebase is a beast to understand fully, and I say that as someone who has been a regular contributor (100+ pull requests merged)
-
@mastodonmigration @baralheia decentralized *where* and *how*
Is ActivityPub really decentralized when everyone builds for compatibility with Mastodon (apart from Lemmy) or is it only decentralized in operations? Where mastodon.social accounts for a significant portion of the network? What about Pixelfed? How much decentralization there? Loops? I think there's only really one maybe two loops servers of any size?
Decentralization doesn't mean "run absolutely everything myself", I mean, sure, you *could* but that's expensive, complicated, and time consuming. Moderation? Most servers just import some blocklist snapshot at a given point in time.
Thing is, decentralization isn't the goal, the goal is better social apps.
Decentralization focuses on technology, not people. It's the "how" not the "why" and "for who"
Decentralization isn't supposed to make things easier for the people using it. It's not supposed to be a better social "app." That's not the point. The whole reason for decentralization is to prevent admin abuse. You put up with a little more hassle as a user, and when the admin sells you out to Nazis, you'll be ready to adapt. Then sellouts don't take over the network, and nobody gets their elections rigged in favor of some tyrannical monster, or whatever.
Criticizing Activitypub for having an optional server that has too many people on it is fine, but you can't equate that to a network run by crummy venture capitalists who worked for Twitter, that won't function without permission from one central authority.
CC: @mastodonmigration@mastodon.online @baralheia@dragonchat.org -
@alexchapman @quillmatiq @evan @dansup @HolosSocial
and it has implications on innovation.
We/I could build a LinkedIn (when LinkedIn was good) version for the fediverse.
A nice professional UI fediverse-client that shows indexed #jobs posts, adding @badgefed / certifications celebrations, and some #lemmy forums on specific companies and job market. But I am afraid that simply indexing (even if done in the "right and respectful" way), would get a drawback.
Couldn't it be done with a mastodon server specifically for jobs on the back end with a front end reworked to LinkedIn?
-
Decentralization isn't supposed to make things easier for the people using it. It's not supposed to be a better social "app." That's not the point. The whole reason for decentralization is to prevent admin abuse. You put up with a little more hassle as a user, and when the admin sells you out to Nazis, you'll be ready to adapt. Then sellouts don't take over the network, and nobody gets their elections rigged in favor of some tyrannical monster, or whatever.
Criticizing Activitypub for having an optional server that has too many people on it is fine, but you can't equate that to a network run by crummy venture capitalists who worked for Twitter, that won't function without permission from one central authority.
CC: @mastodonmigration@mastodon.online @baralheia@dragonchat.org@cy @mastodonmigration @baralheia you have no idea how close to a sell out that almost happened we came, and how it would've affected a significant portion of the fediverse.
They hid that from you.
AT Protocol does and will function without a central authority. Sure, we all use did:plc for identity pretty much, because it's a good trade-off for most people. But did:web is also supported, and the working group at IETF specifically is chartered to allow new DID methods to become part of the network.
Can you use ActivityPub without Webfinger support? That's something Mastodon forced on the network, and everyone else had to adopt if they wanted to federate with Mastodon.
(Hint: you can't choose *not* to do Webfinger with ActivityPub, because you won't be able to interoperate with most of the network which requires webfinger).
Edit: Also, Dan posts almost too frequently about *not* selling out, which is mildly disconcerting.
-
@cy @mastodonmigration @baralheia you have no idea how close to a sell out that almost happened we came, and how it would've affected a significant portion of the fediverse.
They hid that from you.
AT Protocol does and will function without a central authority. Sure, we all use did:plc for identity pretty much, because it's a good trade-off for most people. But did:web is also supported, and the working group at IETF specifically is chartered to allow new DID methods to become part of the network.
Can you use ActivityPub without Webfinger support? That's something Mastodon forced on the network, and everyone else had to adopt if they wanted to federate with Mastodon.
(Hint: you can't choose *not* to do Webfinger with ActivityPub, because you won't be able to interoperate with most of the network which requires webfinger).
Edit: Also, Dan posts almost too frequently about *not* selling out, which is mildly disconcerting.
Yeah, but webfinger is just responding to certain URIs on the same server that your instance is, and it really isn't necessary for anything other than resolving the email-y Twitterlike mentions to APIDs. It's not like there's some central webfinger server that every one must finger.
CC: @mastodonmigration@mastodon.online @baralheia@dragonchat.org -
Yeah, but webfinger is just responding to certain URIs on the same server that your instance is, and it really isn't necessary for anything other than resolving the email-y Twitterlike mentions to APIDs. It's not like there's some central webfinger server that every one must finger.
CC: @mastodonmigration@mastodon.online @baralheia@dragonchat.org@cy @mastodonmigration @baralheia true there's not a central webfinger server one must finger. But that comes with a trade-off that your identity is permanently tied to your server.
That's why account migration is lossy and why you need to create a new account just to change your handle.
If you don't do webfinger as an ActivityPub software implementer today, you'll have a hard time interoperating with the rest of the network who expect webfinger, because back in the distant past Mastodon decided webfinger was the technology to use. In fairness, DIDs didn't exist yet, only some of their nascent ideas did (that's where alsoKnownAs comes from in AP)
There's a thread somewhere here that was like "ActivityPub was never designed to have usernames or handles or anything like that, just actor ID URIs"
Microblogging doesn't really work if you can't @mention someone, as far as most people are concerned.
Also, you don't *need* DID PLC to do AT Protocol, you can totally use did:web, it just has a trade off like that of using webfinger: your identity becomes tied to a domain name.
Here's how you do did:web: https://whtwnd.com/bnewbold.net/3mdc7fpbxhk26
It's pretty manual because it's a pretty technical way to do things. Some PDS implementations may do did:web by default, but that article is covering the reference pds implementation, that doesn't focus on did:web
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@whitequark Man, those are *antennas*, so…maybe two or three?
-
Sometimes I wonder why my brain works like this.
I have a deadline in half an hour, another in two hours, but I'm working on what I need to do over the next 10 days, which I enjoy much more.My mind is rebellious.
-
@matz Avessi quel nome sarei scappato anch'io, e probabilmente fra poco scapperà anche mio fratello.
-
Sono io, fammi entrare.
Non cerco in te un rifugio per l’eternità.
Non sono infelice.
Non sono senza casa … https://cctm.website/wislawa-szymborska-sono-io/Wislawa Szymborska
#WislawaSzymborska #poesia #cctmwebsite #anoipiaceleggere #leggere
-
@whitequark Knuckles is gonna start flying around your RAM
-
The same coworker just reported another success story. A potential client shared an existing project to estimate improvements. “Their project contains compiled binaries made with Fox Pro, I don’t know any Fox Pro, it would have taken me more than a week to learn enough to make sense of it, Claude gave me an analysis in 3 hours! It’s fucking awesome!”
-
-
Coworker told Claude to create a Kubernetes cluster setup for a new project, and it just worked. He doesn’t know Kubernetes, all he knows is he got a cluster working in 6 hours instead of spending 80 hours learning Kubernetes, so he’s very happy. Management is salivating too.
😑
