@mousey Yes, it's very likely that I'll use Bluesky to access the ATproto network, which is the most likely option nowadays. When I create my own app, lexicon, PDS, AppView, etc., the data doesn't necessarily go through Bluesky. It can, as it's open data, but it doesn't have to. If users and app creators get the impression that Bluesky is somehow exploiting their interactions, it's not so difficult to bypass Bluesky and even fork the protocol. Am I right?
Robert Zelník
Posts
-
Who owns Bluesky? -
Who owns Bluesky?@ikuturso @mousey Yes, Mastodon (and the entire Fediverse) takes a completely different approach. It's a bottom-up movement, whereas Bluesky/ATmosphere is more of a top-down approach with the gradual release of participation capabilities. The Bluesky project was originally initiated by Jack Dorsey at Twitter as an intended replacement for the previous centralised architecture.
-
Who owns Bluesky?@ikuturso @mousey Bluesky is hosting 99% of users because it started as a centralised project that is gradually being handed over to the community. However, this centralisation will not be the case when more providers and communities start to offer AT-proto related services. Have you heard of the Eurosky project, for example? Check it:
https://www.eurosky.tech/ -
Who owns Bluesky?@ikuturso @mousey If anyone can run their own server, how do they control the infrastructure? Actually, one company does develop both the application and the protocol. That is controversial. Protocol development should be separated from the application and carried out by an independent non-profit organisation. I hope they will do it.
-
Who owns Bluesky?@mousey You're right — Bluesky's users and communities don't own it. But does that matter? No, the protocol matters. It's open. Even Bluesky itself is open. You can fork it, and the fork is definitely yours. You can create your own app. You can also take your Bluesky data and self-host it on your home server. What's wrong with that?