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

Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

atproto.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–157 of 157 posts

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#151

Post by eqvinox »

danabramov wrote: post #55
eqvinox wrote: post #25

Cool people use ActivityPub. Single vendor owned & controlled standards always turn out badly, just a question when.

>Cool people use ActivityPub. ActivityPub solves a completely different (arguably, smaller) set of problems. This is like saying "Cool people use email instead of web". I have a few diagrams here that may help see just how different they are: https://overreacted.io/there-are-no-instances-in-atproto/#so... >Single vendor owned & controlled standards always turn out badly, just a question when. Yeah, which is why atpro…

Your diagram at the top of that explainer doesn't include the various Mastodon (not sure if instancereader is ActivityPub) client apps, but does include ATProto/Bluesky client apps. Without that, it seems rather incomplete and I don't feel like so can take away much from it?

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#152

Post by eqvinox »

rudyfraser wrote: post #87

Chiming in to say as the CEO of Blacksky that not only do we have an independent AT Protocol implementation in Rust ( https://github.com/blacksky-algorithms/rsky ) Not only do we run a fully independent stack ( https://docs.blacksky.community/readme/list-of-our-services ) Not only are we getting paid by other orgs to stand up independent app view servers. We also received a license from Bluesky for the atproto tradem…

> We also received a license from Bluesky for the atproto trademark.

Is that license irrevocable/permanent from their side?

(It really needs to be, except for clauses against misconduct from your side.)

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#153

Post by natebc »

wwalexander wrote: post #94
natebc wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never underestimate the siren song of scene drama.

What scene?

In this case? Social Network protocol scene but generally the open source world (and every other niche interest in existence) has it's own bouts with scene drama.

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#154

Post by polymer8563 »

well_ackshually wrote: post #127
ktosobcy wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right… and still 99,99% of everything is held by bsky PDS and goes through their rely and appview… so much for "distributed federation"

In the same way that 99.99% of standard mastodon users are on mastodon.social, yes. No, the million of users sharing porn on entirely isolated mastodon instances that absolutely nobody wants to federate with because you'd be exposed to pictures of minors within 5 minutes do not count.

check your sources

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#155

Post by yellowapple »

demosthanos wrote: post #89
danabramov wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean it as a linguistic gotcha ("ha, you said instances! but we call them something else"). I'm saying this is a category error because the network topology is different. This is like saying that web is not free because people aren't running Google-scale indexes in their garages. Tried to clarify this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48932956

I don't think the Google comparison is doing you any favors in resolving the concern behind the category error, though. What I'm hearing is that AT is like the web if Google had started the web themselves and designed it around their index as the primary means of accessing anything on the web. Sure, they still have Don't Be Evil as their motto at this stage, and in the 90s maybe we would have been naive enough to bel…

> and designed it around their index as the primary means of accessing anything on the web

Except that you don't have to use an ATproto relay (the “index” equivalent here) to access anything on ATproto; there's nothing stopping you from grabbing records directly from anyone's PDS. You'd just need some way to know which PDS to consult; that's normally the relay's job, but it doesn't have to be (nor does the relay necessarily need to snarf every record from every PDS if you know you only care about a subset of that info).

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#156

Post by Vinnl »

well_ackshually wrote: post #127
ktosobcy wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right… and still 99,99% of everything is held by bsky PDS and goes through their rely and appview… so much for "distributed federation"

In the same way that 99.99% of standard mastodon users are on mastodon.social, yes. No, the million of users sharing porn on entirely isolated mastodon instances that absolutely nobody wants to federate with because you'd be exposed to pictures of minors within 5 minutes do not count.

Mastodon.social is too big, but it is on a different scale: https://arewedecentralizedyet.online

(Though I do agree it's partially irrelevant, depending on what problem you're trying to solve.)

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#157

Post by ktosobcy »

well_ackshually wrote: post #127
ktosobcy wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right… and still 99,99% of everything is held by bsky PDS and goes through their rely and appview… so much for "distributed federation"

In the same way that 99.99% of standard mastodon users are on mastodon.social, yes. No, the million of users sharing porn on entirely isolated mastodon instances that absolutely nobody wants to federate with because you'd be exposed to pictures of minors within 5 minutes do not count.

yeah… but nope.

yes, mastodon.social is big but there is more plurality. There is about 250k users on mastodon.social while whole fediverse is about 10 milion

On the other hand while tere is roughly 35 milion bluesky users there is only ~50k on non-blusky PDSes (https://blue.mackuba.eu/directory/pdses) so there's that…

Post reply on HN