I hope someone comes up with a multi-protocol social server. Bridges are a bad architecture for decentralized systems, because they introduce single points of failure. I can understand using a read-only bridge to mirror content from external resources, but if the other side speaks a federation protocol you should find a way to communicate directly so you don't have to worry about intermediary failures.
Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters
21–30 of 471 posts
Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing against Bluesky, but I think we are all a little jaded after seeing decades of the "embrace, extend, extinguish" pattern.
Being jaded is understandable, but because this critique is generic, it is applicable to literally anything and everything. I don't see how you can ever get something that's considered good if you always assume it will turn into something bad regardless of its current stance.
Sometimes I'm spot on, sometimes I stand corrected. The problem is, as time goes, your free time reserve starts to decline. You optimize things, consolidate services, etc., and these kind of migrations start to take tons of time.
Because of this, I gave "big web" up and moved to "small web", and always have plans to evacuate any service in a moment's notice.
It's like being a doomsday-preparer from a point, but at least I have backups and backup plans for everything.
Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing against Bluesky, but I think we are all a little jaded after seeing decades of the "embrace, extend, extinguish" pattern.
This would be more "create, extinguish", because there's no existing AT protocol network to embrace.
Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters
#24Hey HN, the engineering team at Bluesky is especially excited to get to this point! We're happy to help answer questions and help anyone trying to run their own PDS host. Things should work pretty well for self-hosters right now, but we're standing by to help if there are any problems. Technical details and the installer are in the GitHub repo https://github.com/bluesky-social/pds And we're on Discord available to he…
Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters
#25Hey HN, the engineering team at Bluesky is especially excited to get to this point! We're happy to help answer questions and help anyone trying to run their own PDS host. Things should work pretty well for self-hosters right now, but we're standing by to help if there are any problems. Technical details and the installer are in the GitHub repo https://github.com/bluesky-social/pds And we're on Discord available to he…
Edit: now it has one! Thanks!
Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters
#26>You need to join Discord to access the feature Seriously?! Will this trend ever dies?! I don’t want to use discord, can’t they just make a simple request form? Whenever I see “join our discord” for anything in any service I just never use that service, keep it as an option for whoever wants to hangout there just don’t make it the “only” channel of communication!
The goal is just to help PDS operators join the network and make sure that if there's a problem we have a channel of communication open.
Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congratulations on the release! If I may ask a question - is it possible to register an account without a phone number on a 3-rd party server?
Thanks! Yes, it's totally up to a PDS operator to decide how they create user accounts. It's also not required on the Bluesky PDS service any longer, in most cases. By default the self-hosted PDS requires an invite code, to prevent random people from creating an account. Later other options will exist, including OAuth support which is coming soon.
> It's also not required on the Bluesky service any longer, in most cases.
That's also nice to hear - when last time I tried to register an account (shortly after the free registration launch) the phone number field in the registration form was marked as required, if I am not mistaken.
Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would be more "create, extinguish", because there's no existing AT protocol network to embrace.
"embrace" would be the rise of decentralized social media
Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters
#29And don’t say “lets defederate with said bad actors” since they would still exist and anyone can join said bad actors instances.
It’s akin to telling antelopes surrounded by lions to close their eyes and the lions are ‘gone’ yet the lions still exist around them.
Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters
#30Hey HN, the engineering team at Bluesky is especially excited to get to this point! We're happy to help answer questions and help anyone trying to run their own PDS host. Things should work pretty well for self-hosters right now, but we're standing by to help if there are any problems. Technical details and the installer are in the GitHub repo https://github.com/bluesky-social/pds And we're on Discord available to he…
It would probably be worth clarifying in that repo what the license is for both the code in that repo and the code that it's actually running. It looks like it's just a very thin wrapper around @atproto/pds, which is MIT/Apache 2.0 [0], but the repo you link to has no license. Edit: now it has one! Thanks! [0] https://www.npmjs.com/package/@atproto/pds