Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The AT Protocol

atproto.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 109 posts

Re: The AT Protocol

#61

Post by encryptluks2 »

TrevorFSmith wrote: post #56

If a team can't work within an existing standards body or a community (like the ActivityPub contributors) then they simply can't create an actually decentralized and open protocol/network. They can, however, create something that they can define and control for their own gain. Rolling out this protocol on a site without a community forum or other discussion channel but simply a "give us your email address and we'll l…

Yeah.. when I saw that and something about joining a waitlist for something that should be developed in public I noped my way out. I hope other people learn have similar BS indicators and don't fall for this stuff. There is nothing open about joining a wait-list.

Re: The AT Protocol

#62

Post by jdhdjdjdhekeie »

pie_flavor wrote: post #51
dchnshA wrote: post #47

Nah thanks, I'll stick with ActivityPub. The fact they even felt the need to create another protocol instead of using, improving and contributing to ActivityPub makes me think they want to bake a busines modell for themselves into the technology and they can't do that if they don't have full control over the spec. ActivityPub is organically grown from a community to serve that community. Bluesky is created to combine…

'The specification may be terrible, and everything good about it may be implementation-specific, and every touted feature you're looking for may be missing from the only implementations anyone uses, but you can always just break compatibility from all the de facto standards, and so that's no reason to come up with your own base standard' seems flatly wrong, and that actually is a pretty great reason to come up with y…

except nobody moved from irc to discord because of the protocol. and all discord does can be implemented on top of it. nobody cares.

irc died and discord boomed because there was a user generation change. an explosion of new users eclipsed the few irc old timers.

discord is garbage any way you look at it. dont try to sell it as fixing irc. lol.

Re: The AT Protocol

#63

Post by altantiprocrast »

qualudeheart wrote: post #59
adenozine wrote: post #55

This seems really cool. I have looked at ActivityPub quite a bit and written a little basic client/server but the identity portability thing is pretty much a nonstarter for it to be taken seriously in normal circles. I’ve found the content quality of the fediverse to be abysmally low thus far, I think AT could work especially because of the big name behind it. Twitter did the Ruby community a huge solid back in the d…

Most fediverse users were banned from Twitter or quit Twitter for ideological reasons.

Or quit Twitter because the algorithm pushes celebrities and organizations too much, rather than actual humans?

Re: The AT Protocol

#64

Post by dapids »

whoopdedo wrote: post #52
karmakaze wrote: post #49

Oh they mean 'At'-protocol. I was thinking Hayes 'AT' commands.

Which still lives on today in cellular networks. At least up to LTE, I haven't looked lately to see if they're sticking around for 5G. https://www.rfwireless-world.com/Terminology/modem-AT-comman...

It's still there.

Re: The AT Protocol

#66

Post by arcatech »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #61
TrevorFSmith wrote: post #56

If a team can't work within an existing standards body or a community (like the ActivityPub contributors) then they simply can't create an actually decentralized and open protocol/network. They can, however, create something that they can define and control for their own gain. Rolling out this protocol on a site without a community forum or other discussion channel but simply a "give us your email address and we'll l…

Yeah.. when I saw that and something about joining a waitlist for something that should be developed in public I noped my way out. I hope other people learn have similar BS indicators and don't fall for this stuff. There is nothing open about joining a wait-list.

It’s a waitlist for the first app, not the protocol itself.

Re: The AT Protocol

#67

Post by omeze »

jdhdjdjdhekeie wrote: post #62
pie_flavor wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'The specification may be terrible, and everything good about it may be implementation-specific, and every touted feature you're looking for may be missing from the only implementations anyone uses, but you can always just break compatibility from all the de facto standards, and so that's no reason to come up with your own base standard' seems flatly wrong, and that actually is a pretty great reason to come up with y…

except nobody moved from irc to discord because of the protocol. and all discord does can be implemented on top of it. nobody cares. irc died and discord boomed because there was a user generation change. an explosion of new users eclipsed the few irc old timers. discord is garbage any way you look at it. dont try to sell it as fixing irc. lol.

the gp is not saying discord is a better protocol, they’re saying 1) no one cares about activitypub as a protocol because it has one de facto implementation that deviates from the protocol and 2) making something new is easier when the goal is making something people actually use

Re: The AT Protocol

#69

Post by [deleted] »

arcatech wrote: post #66
encryptluks2 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah.. when I saw that and something about joining a waitlist for something that should be developed in public I noped my way out. I hope other people learn have similar BS indicators and don't fall for this stuff. There is nothing open about joining a wait-list.

It’s a waitlist for the first app, not the protocol itself.

[deleted]

Re: The AT Protocol

#70

Post by riffic »

dchnshA wrote: post #47

Nah thanks, I'll stick with ActivityPub. The fact they even felt the need to create another protocol instead of using, improving and contributing to ActivityPub makes me think they want to bake a busines modell for themselves into the technology and they can't do that if they don't have full control over the spec. ActivityPub is organically grown from a community to serve that community. Bluesky is created to combine…

necessary context:

https://blueskyweb.xyz/blog/10-18-2022-the-at-protocol

the appropriate place to develop protocols is within IETF, W3C, or other open groups which I'm absolutely sure Twitter could have played a role within.

Kind of discouraging to see this PBLLC doing things their own way.

Post reply on HN