Reading this article, and especially the end …

CEO Jay Graber told The Verge that the plan is to hand over control of the AT protocol to a web standards body like the Internet Engineering Task Force.

… it almost sounds as if Bluesky is (going to be) as community-run as Mastodon.

But I’m suspicious. What is the catch?

  • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.mlEnglish
    15·
    3 months ago

    The catch is that the whole system is effectively centralised on BlueSky backend services (basically the relay). So while the protocol may be standardised and open, and interpreted with decentralised components, they’ll control the core service. Which means they can unilaterally decide to introduce profitable things like ads and charging for features.

    The promise of the system though is that it provides for various levels of independence that can all connect to each other, so people with different needs and capabilities can all find their spot in the ecosystem. Whether that happens is a big question. Generally I’d say I’m optimistic about the ideas and architecture, but unsure about whether the community around it will get it to what I think it should be.

  • ColonelThirtyTwo@pawb.social
    10·
    3 months ago

    As far as I know, no one has demonstrated that they can successfully run their own instance and have it integrated with the main Bluesky infrastructure as easily as the spec authors have claimed.

    Until that happens, all the talk about federation and open standards is just that - talk.

    • KurtVonnegut@mander.xyzOP
      3·
      3 months ago

      What are the most important “points of control” that, in the case of Bluesky, are in the hands of this one company, and in the case of Mastodon (or the Fediverse at large?), are in the hands of the community?

      It appears that on Bluesky, similar to Mastodon, you can start your own server by now. But on Bluesky you’re not (yet) able to have other users sign up to that server? And you can’t have your own moderation rules on your own server (yet)?

      If I would start my own Bluesky server, and a friend does as well, would our ability to communicate be somehow still at the mercy of choices by the Bluesky company?

      What is the practical difference between the AT protocol being controlled by a (public benefit) corporation, and it being controlled by a web standards body?

      Disclaimer: I’m not a secret Bluesky fanboy. I just want to have the arguments ready to convince friends to not join Bluesky, and join Mastodon instead.