Live data from Hacker News

Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters

bsky.social

261–270 of 471 posts

Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters

#261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public = consent for the public to see it. That includes the public on Bluesky. It was consensual. And the ruckus was in fact about Bluesky in particular. That's why the same project already supported other protocols without a big ruckus . In general, "I want my stuff on Bluesky but don't want to deal with cross-posting to multiple different platforms and keeping up with responses on all of them" And, "I want my stuf…

It was meant for the public to see, not to bulk copy it en masse to somewhere else. Similarly, I don't want my blog posts used to train LLMs. I know they're likely to be since they're published right there on the Internet for anyone to see and read. But my intent was for other humans to see and read them, not for someone to feed them into a regurgitator. There aren't technical means that let me allow humans to read m…

> It was meant for the public to see, not to bulk copy it en masse to somewhere else.

Except literally the entire design is for other Mastodon servers to bulk copy it en masse to somewhere else.

> There aren't technical means that let me allow humans to read my stuff without allowing LLMs to ingest it

Yes there are. Don't make it public.

> However, I reserve the right to think someone's an ass for doing it.

Of course! You can think anyone is an ass. You can think anything you want. That doesn't mean that person did anything wrong.

Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters

#262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basic anti-spam. Just look on Mastodon (and the thankless job of many instance mods) or on how Twitter gets overrun with porn, crypto, crypto scam or troll bots...

Ah yes, incredibly low limits with no way to say "hey look we're quality, let us do more". That's "basic anti-spam". Sure. It's actually "you can host yourself and your friends but anyone who doesn't know someone with a server and technical knowledge must use our platform"

These are just the initial limits while we work out any issues. It'd be bad for everyone if the network was immediately overrun with spammers launching PDS hosts with millions of fake users/posts, etc. Even though our infra might be able to weather this kind of abuse, there are many independent feed generators (custom algorithms) operated by individuals that would likely fall over.

The plan is to increase limits sufficiently to account for all legitimate usage.

(It's also worth pointing out that these limits only apply to our Relay service. The expectation is that there will be other Relays on the network in the future.)

Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters

#263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what binds this? I have no interest in joining if Jack can sell to Elon again and a switch gets flipped

That specific scenario is impossible, in my understanding, because Jack does not have an ownership stake in the company. This release, of federation, is in my mind a major answer to the real question you're asking, which is the same but with "the employees" instead of "Jack," as they have the equity stake. Once things are federated, other folks gain power over the protocol, by virtue of usage. If Bluesky PBLLC starts…

The issue here is that if 99% of people use BlueSky and 1% use non-BlueSky AtProto servers, that leaves BlueSky with all the power to turn off federation. If BlueSky starts to do shady things, other instances can refuse and talk to each other instead - and eliminate 99% of your followers, 99% of the people you're following, etc.

Email is open, but if GMail decides to block all email from you, you're toast. And while GMail is large, their percentage of email inboxes pales in comparison to BlueSky's percentage of AtProto users (which is near 100% at the moment).

Yes, once things are federated, other folks start gaining some power over the protocol by virtue of usage. However, if 99% of people remain with BlueSky, everyone else essentially has no power.

mastodon.social has around 15% of the Fediverse on its server and it means that it has a lot of power. Mastodon (the software) is around 72% of the Fediverse which means that other ActivityPub software essentially has to use Mastodon-flavored ActivityPub with whatever quirks might exist in Mastodon. But that's still way less power than BlueSky has in the AtProto ecosystem.

Open protocols are only good as long as there's enough reason for lots of different parties to keep those lines of communication open. mastodon.social needs to keep supporting ActivityPub because they'd lose 85% of their network if they stopped. Let's say it's 2030 and AtProto has 500M users and 99% of them are using BlueSky. BlueSky could simply turn off all the AtProto endpoints and make their web and mobile apps use proprietary endpoints. I'm not saying they'd do that, but they certainly could. Now, if 2030 comes around and there are 500M AtProto users and 10% of them are on BlueSky, then it wouldn't really be possible for BlueSky to turn off AtProto. They'd lose 90% of their network.

But we don't know if AtProto will catch on outside of BlueSky or if BlueSky will remain the vast majority of the network. If there isn't a lot of use outside of BlueSky, there could come a day when it's very tempting to turn it off - or do something that isn't quite turning it off, but would effectively accomplish it. Maybe they just start making breaking changes to AtProto, rolling it out, and documenting the change a week later and third parties just end up unreliable and people migrate off them. There's lots of options.

Five years from now, how is BlueSky making money? Are they just storing, processing, and serving lots of content without good monetization as third party apps start grabbing users and making money off their servers? I mean, we saw what Reddit and Twitter did. If BlueSky controls 99% of AtProto users, they can turn the firehose off. Even if they aren't trying to be evil or maximize their revenue, at some point they need money for all those engineers and servers. Maybe the official BlueSky app will be popular enough for them to get some ad revenue there and not feel the need to go after third party apps. Maybe a lot of things.

But until BlueSky is a minority of AtProto users/posts/etc., it's still something they have a lot of power over - including the power to pivot BlueSky off AtProto and make BlueSky a proprietary network.

Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters

#264

> Specifically, each PDS will be able to host 10 accounts and limited to 1500 evts/hr and 10,000 evts/day Can't have anyone competing with you, after all!

Basic anti-spam. Just look on Mastodon (and the thankless job of many instance mods) or on how Twitter gets overrun with porn, crypto, crypto scam or troll bots...

For what its worth I've yet to see any spam at all in my Mastodon feeds (regular user for about a year, accounts on multiple instances). Much respect to the admins for staying on top of it.

Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters

#265
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Twitter is a conservative cesspool Interesting. I see it as the de-facto journalist platform, which to me (as a non american) make it very left leaning. But then again, I don't use X.

American journalism isn't left-leaning. At best it is "click" leaning, and say what they need to do to get eyeballs on their content. This is why they helped normalize trump so hard, and repeatedly fail to call out the extremist right wing in the US.

This is what a lot of people don't get about the "pop feminism" era of online "journalism" in the pre-Trump era: it wasn't feminism, it was clickbait. At best it sold an idea of feminism but the emphasis was always on the selling part and not anything ideological. "Girlboss feminism" helps no-one except the bosses.

The same is true about most so-called "left-wing" journalism. Some journalists may be true believers but the platforms exist to make money, not to be any threat to the systems those ideologies explicitly oppose.

Heck, this even goes for political parties like the Democrats: the Texas governor literally rejected the authority of the federal government and legislative system by deploying his military at the border and the Democrat president's response was to propose a bill that would have created a legal avenue for what the treasonous governor was trying to make happen. Decorum is used as an excuse to keep intentionally ceding ground to the supposed political enemy.

Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters

#266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reddit destroyed Apollo so they could inject ads into the Reddit experience. Bluesky doesn't have the ability to do this. There's no API key to revoke that could stop someone else from running parallel apps/infrastructure/etc. The network is completely open.

Reddit had ads long before they destroyed Apollo. Thanks for providing additional evidence for my point.

Sure, but Apollo made it easy for users that didn't want ads to use Reddit without them. Destroying Apollo removed that ability for most people.

I'm about as anti-ads as it gets but I don't object to other people using apps with ads in them, if that's their choice.

Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters

#267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public is public. And someone else will just go build an opt-out (or maybe even no opt-out!) bridge.

Nah. Consent is a thing and this wasn't consensual. Yes, the posts were publicly accessible, but the intent of posting to Mastodon isn't to have it show up automatically on another network. It's technically possible, yes. It's still a dick thing to do and it pissed people off. And again, it wasn't about Bluesky in particular. If Google announced that they were going to ingest all Mastodon content and post it in a new…

>If Google announced that they were going to ingest all Mastodon content and post it in a new Google Groups kind of thing, they'd be pretty understandably upset about that, too.

exactly like they did with usenet without any issue?

Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters

#268
post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That specific scenario is impossible, in my understanding, because Jack does not have an ownership stake in the company. This release, of federation, is in my mind a major answer to the real question you're asking, which is the same but with "the employees" instead of "Jack," as they have the equity stake. Once things are federated, other folks gain power over the protocol, by virtue of usage. If Bluesky PBLLC starts…

The issue here is that if 99% of people use BlueSky and 1% use non-BlueSky AtProto servers, that leaves BlueSky with all the power to turn off federation. If BlueSky starts to do shady things, other instances can refuse and talk to each other instead - and eliminate 99% of your followers, 99% of the people you're following, etc. Email is open, but if GMail decides to block all email from you, you're toast. And while…

For sure. One nice thing about AT's design is that, if they do, you can take your posts over to some other host, and it'll all Just Work. True account portability makes that kind of power grab harder. Of course, that would require users to actually move, which is not a given.

Time will tell!

Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters

#269

I switched to Bluesky but then moved back to twitter. I'm glad that they are trying to compete with Twitter (Twitter is a conservative cesspool), but all of my non-technical friends have stayed on Twitter. So, I end up going where they are. I think the reason my friends did not join Bluesky despite me inviting them is that it just isn't as good of a product as Twitter. You can't post videos or DM. I am not a tech exe…

> Twitter is a conservative cesspool I disagree. If anything now it's more balanced, every "right of Portland-liberal" is no longer hidden and shadow-banned or worse. I like it a lot more! Now you can actually read and learn about stuff you care about.

I agree. I now see both extremes(horseshoe) and in-between as much. While before it was heavily leaned towards the left.

Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters

#270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public is public. And someone else will just go build an opt-out (or maybe even no opt-out!) bridge.

Nah. Consent is a thing and this wasn't consensual. Yes, the posts were publicly accessible, but the intent of posting to Mastodon isn't to have it show up automatically on another network. It's technically possible, yes. It's still a dick thing to do and it pissed people off. And again, it wasn't about Bluesky in particular. If Google announced that they were going to ingest all Mastodon content and post it in a new…

> Yes, the posts were publicly accessible, but the intent of posting to Mastodon isn't to have it show up automatically on another network.

I thought that was the point of activitypub.

Post reply on HN